Rule: Fishery conservation and management: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone&#8212; Atlantic blue and white marlin, recreational landings limit; Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish, fishery management plans

Monday,
October 2, 2006
Part II
Department of
Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Parts 300, 600, and 635

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; Final Rule
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:21 Sep 29, 2006 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\02OCR2.SGM 02OCR2
58058 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 190 / Monday, October 2, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final the Environmental Protection Agency
Consolidated HMS FMP and other (EPA) published the Notice of
National Oceanic and Atmospheric relevant documents are available from Availability (NOA) for the Draft
Administration the Highly Migratory Species Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Management Division website at and the accompanying Draft
50 CFR Parts 300, 600, and 635 www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms or by Consolidated HMS FMP (70 FR 48705).
contacting Karyl Brewster-Geisz at 301– The 60-day comment period on the
[Docket No. 030908222-6241-02; I.D. 713–2347. proposed rule was initially open until
051603C] October 18, 2005. However, because
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Karyl Brewster-Geisz, Margo Schulze- many of NMFS’ constituents were
RIN 0648–AQ65 adversely affected by Hurricanes Katrina
Haugen, or Chris Rilling at 301–713–
2347 or fax 301–713–1917; Russell and Rita in 2005, and the resultant
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; cancellation of three public hearings in
Recreational Atlantic Blue and White Dunn at 727–824–5399 or fax 727–824–
5398; or Mark Murray-Brown at 978– the Gulf of Mexico region, NMFS
Marlin Landings Limit; Amendments to extended the comment period on the
the Fishery Management Plan for 281–9260 or fax 978–281–9340.
proposed rule until March 1, 2006 (70
Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FR 58177, October 5, 2005) for a total of
and the Fishery Management Plan for Background 194 days. During that time, NMFS held
Atlantic Billfish 24 public hearings, gave presentations at
The Atlantic HMS fisheries are
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries managed under the dual authority of the the five Atlantic Regional Fishery
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Councils and at the Gulf
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Conservation and Management Act and Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commerce. Commissions, and received several
(Magnuson-Stevens Act) and the
thousand written comments. These
ACTION: Final rule; decision on petition Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA).
comments are summarized below under
for rulemaking. The Final Consolidated HMS FMP is
Response to Comments.
implemented by regulations at 50 CFR In the proposed rule, NMFS also took
SUMMARY: NMFS finalizes the part 635.
Consolidated Highly Migratory Species additional actions including:(1) a
NMFS announced its intent to prepare withdrawal of the 2003 proposed rule to
(HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP). an Environmental Impact Statement
This Final Consolidated HMS FMP implement the International
(EIS) amending the the Atlantic Billfish Commission for the Conservation of
changes certain management measures, FMP and FMP for Atlantic Tunas,
adjusts regulatory framework measures, Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) 250
Swordfish, and Sharks on July 9, 2003 recreationally caught marlin landings
and continues the process for updating (68 FR 40907). On April 30, 2004 (69 FR
HMS essential fish habitat. This final limit (September 17, 2003; 68 FR
23730), NMFS announced the 54410); (2) a decision not to include in
rule could impact fishermen and dealers availability of an Issues and Options
for all Atlantic HMS fisheries. The final the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP the
Paper and nine scoping meetings. On exemption to the ‘‘no sale’’ provision for
rule will: establish mandatory May 26, 2004 (69 FR 29927), NMFS
workshops for commercial fishermen the artisanal handline fishery in Puerto
extended the comment period on the Rico, as outlined in the 1988 Billfish
and shark dealers; implement Issues and Options Paper, and FMP; and (3) an analysis of a petition
complementary time/area closures in announced an additional scoping for rulemaking from Blue Ocean
the Gulf of Mexico (GOM); implement meeting. A summary of the major Institute et al. that requested NMFS
criteria for adding new or modifying comments received during scoping was close a particular BFT spawning area in
existing time/area closures; address released in December 2004 and is the Gulf of Mexico (copies of the
rebuilding and overfishing of northern available on the HMS Management petition are available upon request, see
albacore tuna and finetooth sharks; Division website or by requesting a hard ADDRESSES). Item 1 above was
implement recreational management copy (see ADDRESSES). During scoping, completed at the proposed rule stage.
measures for Atlantic billfish; modify NMFS referred to this project as Item 2 is finalized in this final rule with
bluefin tuna (BFT) General Category Amendment 2 to the existing FMPs. the consolidation of the two FMPs, and
subperiod quotas and simplify the Starting with the Predraft stage, NMFS is not discussed further. The decision
management process of BFT; change the has referred to this project as the Draft regarding the petition for rulemaking
fishing year for tunas, swordfish, and Consolidated HMS FMP. (item 3) is described in this final rule
billfish to a calendar year; authorize In February 2005, NMFS released the after the changes to proposed rule
speargun fishing gear in the recreational combined Predraft to the Consolidated section.
fishery for bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, HMS FMP and annual Stock This final rule does not contain
and skipjack (BAYS) tunas; authorize Assessment and Fishery Evaluation information regarding the management
buoy gear in the commercial swordfish (SAFE) Report. Comments received on history of Atlantic HMS, EFH, or the
handgear fishery; clarify the allowance both the Issues and Options Paper and alternatives considered. Those issues
of secondary gears (also known as the Predraft were considered when are discussed in the proposed rule and
cockpit gears); and clarify existing drafting and analyzing the ecological, are not repeated here. This final rule
regulations. This final rule also economic, and social impacts of the does contain responses to comments
announces the decision regarding a alternatives in the proposed rule. A received during the public comment
petition for rulemaking regarding summary of the comments received on period, a description of changes to the
closure areas for spawning BFT in the the Predraft was released in June 2005 proposed rule, and a decision regarding
Gulf of Mexico. and is available on the HMS a petition to rulemaking. The response
DATES: This final rule is effective Management Division website or by to comments section is organized
November 1, 2006, except for the requesting a hard copy (see ADDRESSES). similarly to the organization of the Final
addition of § 635.8 which will be On August 19, 2005, NMFS published HMS FMP and the proposed rule. The
effective January 1, 2007. the proposed rule (70 FR 48804), and description of the changes to the
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 190 / Monday, October 2, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 58059
proposed rule can be found after the Within many of these major groupings conservation management regime and
response to comment section. The are several separate subheadings. The sustainable fisheries. NMFS needs
decision regarding the petition for comments are numbered consecutively, additional education and outreach
rulemaking can be found after the starting with 1, at the beginning of each workshops, as well as cooperative
changes to the proposed rule section. of these separate subheadings. The research initiatives, before significant
Information regarding the subheadings under ‘‘Bycatch reductions in post-release mortality can
management history of Atlantic HMS, Reduction’’ are: (A) Workshops; and, (B) be achieved.
EFH, and the alternatives considered Time/Area Closures. The subheadings Response: The protected species safe
was provided in the preamble of the under ‘‘Rebuilding and Preventing handling, release, and identification
proposed rule and is not repeated here. Overfishing’’ are: (A) Northern Albacore workshops are intended to reduce the
Additional information can be found in Tuna; (B) Finetooth Sharks; and, (C) mortality of sea turtles, smalltooth
the Final Consolidated HMS FMP Atlantic Billfish. The subheadings sawfish, and other protected resources
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). under ‘‘Management Program Structure’’ and non-target species captured
Most of the measures in this rule, include: (A) Bluefin Tuna Quota incidentally in the HMS pelagic and
such as the measures relating to time/ Management; (B) Timeframe for Annual bottom longline and gillnet fisheries.
area closures, BFT, authorized fishing Management of HMS Fisheries; (C) These workshops are required to
gears, and regulatory housekeeping, will Authorized Fishing Gears; and, (D) comply with the 2003 and 2004 ESA
be effective on November 1, 2006. Regulatory Housekeeping Measures. BiOps. Owners and operators of PLL,
However, the workshop alternatives There are no separate subheadings BLL, and gillnet vessels will receive
(§ 635.8) will be effective on January 1, under the major groupings entitled instruction on techniques for
2007, in order to coordinate the ‘‘EFH Update’’; ‘‘Economic and Social disentanglement, resuscitation, release,
workshop requirements with the fishing Impacts’’; ‘‘Consolidation of the FMPs’’; and identification of protected resources
vessel and dealer renewal timeframes. ‘‘Objectives of the FMP’’; and, and other non-target species. The goal of
The management measures related to ‘‘Comment Period/Outreach.’’ the workshops is to increase fishermen’s
the directed billfish fishery (e.g., use of All of the comments in the major proficiency with required release
circle hooks in billfish tournaments) grouping entitled ‘‘General’’ are equipment and protocols to reduce the
will also be effective on January 1, 2007, numbered consecutively, beginning number of protected and non-target
in order to allow anglers and small with 1, however the grouping is further species mortalities. Through the
entities time to adjust to the new divided into subsections that address Northeast Distant (NED) statistical area
requirements. Furthermore, as a result general comments related to recreational experiment, NMFS has shown that
of this final rule, all of the HMS HMS fishing; commercial HMS fishing; significant bycatch reductions can be
management programs will be longlines; swordfish; tunas; sharks; achieved through proper research,
implemented on a calendar year cycle fishing mortality and bycatch reduction; education, and outreach. These
(January 1 to December 31). The permitting, reporting and monitoring; workshops are intended to disseminate
Atlantic shark management timeframe enforcement; and ICCAT. information learned from the NED
will maintain the status quo, whereas experiment, as well as other information
billfish, tunas, and swordfish will shift Bycatch Reduction for the BLL and gillnet fisheries.
from a fishing year (June 1 - May 31) to Comment 3: Several comments
A. Workshops
a calendar year at different times in supported mandatory protected species
2007. Atlantic billfish will shift to a Comment 1: NMFS should have workshops for captains and owners.
calendar year on January 1, 2007. Tunas workshops for the recreational fishing Some of those comments include:
and swordfish will shift to a calendar industry explaining the use of circle owners and captains should attend the
year on January 1, 2008. To transition hooks. workshops, but attendance should not
from a fishing year to a calendar year for Response: NMFS has conducted be mandatory for the crew because it
tunas and swordfish, NMFS will educational outreach efforts to promote would not be feasible for crew members,
establish an abbreviated 2007 fishing the use of circle hooks in recreational who may not be U.S. citizens, to attend
year via a separate action for BFT and fisheries in the past and will continue a workshop; owners’ attendance would
swordfish to cover the months between to do so in the future. NMFS has discourage hiring untrained captains
the end of the 2006 fishing year (May distributed information on circle hooks who do not have the expertise to
31, 2007) and the start of the new 2008 using informational pamphlets, and in properly release sea turtles; support for
calendar year (January 1, 2008). person by attendance at billfish mandatory training to reduce post-
tournaments. This final rule will release mortality of longline-caught
Response to Comments implement shark identification and marine mammals and turtles; the
A large number of individuals and careful release and disentanglement GMFMC supports mandatory workshops
groups provided both written and verbal workshops as required by Endangered for captains on pelagic longline vessels;
comments during the public comment Species Act (ESA) Biological Opinions getting their gear off the turtles should
period. The comments are summarized (BiOps). The Agency may consider be all the incentive fishermen need;
below together with NMFS’s responses. hosting voluntary workshops to address industry will benefit from attending
All of the comments are grouped the use of circle hooks in the these workshops because it will enable
together in a format similar to that recreational fishery and may provide them to avoid further regulations; NMFS
utilized in the preamble of the proposed additional information on circle hooks needs to comply with the BiOp to keep
rule. There are nine major groupings: at billfish tournaments. the fishery open; workshops are a good
Bycatch Reduction; Rebuilding and investment for the fishermen; and, EPA
Preventing Overfishing; Management i. Protected Species Safe Handling, supports alternatives A2 and A3
Program Structure; Essential Fish Release, and Identification Workshops requiring mandatory workshops on
Habitat (EFH) Update; Economic and for Pelagic Longline, Bottom Longline, handling protected species captured or
Social Impacts; Consolidation of the and Gillnet Fishermen entangled in fishing gear for all HMS
FMPs; Objectives of the FMP; Comment Comment 2: Post-release survival is pelagic and bottom longline vessel
Period/Outreach; and General. important to any successful owners (A2) and operators (A3). EPA
also supported preferred alternatives A5 workshop certification. Certified operate, or be aboard, their vessels
(mandatory workshops/certification for operators will be encouraged to transfer during fishing trips. Under this rule,
shark gillnet vessel owners/operators). the knowledge, skills, and protocols protected species safe handling, release,
Response: Under the selected obtained from these workshops to the and identification workshops are
alternatives, NMFS will require owners vessel’s crew members. While these mandatory for all longline and gillnet
and operators, but not crew members, of workshops are mandatory for owners vessel operators. NMFS will encourage
HMS longline and shark gillnet vessels and operators, the workshops will also these operators to disseminate the
to attend the protected species safe be open to other interested parties, workshop information to their fishing
handling, release, and identification including crew members and other HMS crews. By certifying vessel owners,
workshops. HMS longline and gillnet fishermen. Crew members that may NMFS ensures that the owners are
vessel owners will be required to attend have an opportunity to serve as an aware of the certification requirement
and successfully complete the workshop operator on board a vessel are and skills and will hold them
before renewing their HMS fishing encouraged to obtain the workshop accountable for engaging in fishing
permit in 2007. Without workshop training and certification. Crew activities without a certified operator
certification, the vessel’s permit will not members will not be required to obtain onboard. Additionally, the certification
be renewed. Operators will be required certification in the safe handling and requirement will be linked to a vessel’s
to attend the workshop to ensure that at release protocols because the average limited access permits and owners will
least one person on board the vessel, crew member’s individual cost to attend not be able to renew their permits
who is directly involved with the the workshop is greater than the owner without successful completion of the
vessel’s fishing activities, has been and operator. Additional information required workshop. NMFS requires that
successfully trained in the proper safe suggests that turnover is higher with the vessel operators follow safe release and
handling, release, and identification of vessel’s crew, making it difficult to handling protocols when they have
protected species. Without an operator continue operating a vessel with a fully interacted with certain protected
trained in these techniques, the vessel certified crew. With at least one species. All other non-marketable
will be prohibited from engaging in individual on board the vessel trained species should be released in a way that
HMS PLL, BLL, and gillnet fishing and proficient in the safe handling and maximizes their chances of survival.
activities. A safe handling, release, and release protocols, the likelihood of the NMFS requires vessel owners and
identification workshop certificate will safe release and disentanglement of operators to meet or exceed the
be required on board HMS permitted protected species increases performance standards described in the
longline and gillnet vessels during significantly. While implementing 2004 BiOp.
fishing operations. Due to the large mandatory workshops for all Comment 6: NMFS received
universe of HMS longline and shark commercial and recreational HMS comments suggesting that the operator
gillnet crew members, NMFS will not fishermen is a laudable goal, NMFS be required to train the vessel’s crew
require their attendance at these does not have the resources to train with the safe handling and release
workshops. NMFS encourages operators such a large group of individuals at this protocols. Those comments include:
to transfer the knowledge and skills time. Nearly 30,000 HMS recreational alternatives A3 and A5 should include
obtained from successfully completing permit holders would need to be trained a requirement that the certified vessel
the workshops to the crew members, and certified. The cost and logistics of operator train new crew members prior
potentially increasing the proper doing this would be prohibitive. to each trip as is customary for safety
release, disentanglement, and However, NMFS may consider these drills; and, it should be clarified that a
identification of protected resources. workshops and other means for trained and certified owner or operator
While crew members are not required to educating these permit holders in the must be aboard at all times and that this
attend the workshops, to the extent future. individual is responsible for ensuring
practicable, the workshops will be open Comment 5: NMFS received that proper release and disentanglement
to anyone who wishes to attend and comments opposed to the protected gear is aboard, the crew is informed, and
receive certification. species workshops. These comments correct procedures are followed.
Comment 4: NMFS received several include: handling bycatch correctly Response: Owners and operators of
comments supporting mandatory wastes too much time on a valuable HMS permitted longline and gillnet
workshop certification for all HMS money-making longline trip; I am vessels will be required to obtain the
commercial and recreational hook and opposed to alternative A2 and part of protected species safe handling, release,
line fisheries. Those comments include: A5, mandatory workshops and and identification workshop
Handling and release workshops should certification for all HMS pelagic and certification before the vessel’s permit
be implemented immediately for all bottom longline and shark gillnet vessel expires in 2007. Operators will be
HMS commercial and recreational hook owners because it is unnecessary, unless required to be proficient in the safe
and line fisheries in order to gain the they are an owner and an operator; handling and release protocols to ensure
maximum benefit from mitigation owners may not be the vessel operator that there is an individual on board the
technologies and fishing practice; on fishing trips. The first priority should vessel with the necessary skills to
training the greatest number of crew be the vessel operator onboard while at disentangle, safely release, and
members is the key to protecting these sea on fishing trips. accurately identify any protected
imperiled species. To offset the Response: NMFS agrees that handling species caught in the vessel’s gear.
economic impact, we support a longer bycatch correctly may take extra time Owners and operators will be
interval between required training for and effort. However, proper handling of encouraged to explain and demonstrate
the rest of the crew, but not a complete bycatch ensures the continued survival the safe handling and release protocols
exemption; and, all HMS fishermen of protected, threatened, and to the vessel’s crew members. Owners
should the complete workshops. endangered species, prevents an and operators will not be required to
Response: This final rule requires exceedance of the incidental take train crew members, as this requirement
owners and operators of PLL, BLL, and statement (ITS), and prevents a would be difficult to monitor and
gillnet vessels to obtain the safe shutdown of the fishery. NMFS realizes enforce. While crew members are not
handling, release, and identification that many vessel owners may not required to attend the protected species
safe handling, release, and identification Comment 8: NMFS received protocols to the certified individuals
workshops, to the extent practicable, comments on grandfathering prior to their next workshop.
these workshops will be open to individuals who attended the industry Comment 9: NMFS received several
individuals interested in receiving the certified workshops held in Orlando, comments requesting careful
certification. Florida and New Orleans, Louisiana. consideration when scheduling the
Comment 7: NMFS received Those comments include: the industry workshops. Comments include: the
comments in support of training should be recognized for holding lunar cycles should be considered when
fishermen in the proper release of workshops before NMFS finalized scheduling the workshops; workshops
prohibited species and billfish, as well mandatory workshops; the three-year during closed season can still
as protected species. These comments clock should start ticking on January 1, inconvenience people because shark
include: NMFS should include safe 2007, for those who are grandfathered fishermen also fish for wahoo, dolphin,
release training for sharks and billfishes in, not from when they took the etc.; NMFS needs to be cognizant of the
in these workshops; these workshops workshop; certification should be given time burden involved for fishermen; the
should be referred to as ‘‘Careful to fishermen and owners who attended mandatory workshops should be held
Handling and Release Workshops,’’ previously held workshops; 85 percent only for critical issues because
rather than protected species workshops of pelagic longline fishermen were fishermen must be out fishing to be
because the workshops are appropriate trained and industry certified in 2005. profitable; and, there needs to be
for many species; and, the scope of the The industry was supportive and flexibility in the process because not
protected species workshops should be actively engaged. These workshops everyone will be able to attend the
expanded to include prohibited species. should serve as a template for the future workshops.
workshops; if the industry-certified sea Response: To the extent practicable,
Response: NMFS agrees that safe NMFS will consider lunar cycles and
handling, release, and identification turtle handlers who have already
attended and passed the industry their resultant impacts on the
training may be beneficial to all availability of HMS participants when
participants in HMS fisheries, including mandatory certification classes are
required to do something, it should be scheduling protected species safe
those that interact with sharks and handling, release, and identification
billfishes. The need for protected an online review and should not have
to lose additional time at sea and incur workshops. However, since the Agency
species safe handling, release, and does not know the other fisheries in
identification workshops stems from additional travel expenses; and, the
process should be streamlined for these which fishermen may be participating at
two BiOps issued for the commercial all times, the Agency cannot guarantee
shark fishery and the pelagic longline individuals to receive their initial
certification. that each workshop will be held at a
fishery. These two BiOps also require time that would minimize lost fishing
outreach to the commercial fisheries Response: NMFS agrees that industry opportunities. These workshops will be
employing PLL, BLL, and shark gillnet should be recognized for holding held in areas with high concentrations
gear on the proper safe handling, voluntary workshops before NMFS of permit holders, according to the
release, and identification of protected finalized the Consolidated HMS FMP. addresses provided when applying for
species. To comply with these BiOps, As such, all owners and operators that, an HMS permit. The workshop schedule
the intent of these workshops is to as documented by workshop facilitators, will be available in advance to allow
reduce the post-release mortality of sea attended and successfully completed fishermen to attend a workshop that is
turtles that are most frequently caught industry certification workshops held most convenient to them. The Agency
by participants using BLL or gillnet gear on April 8, 2005, in Orlando, FL, and on may provide an opportunity for the
to target sharks or PLL gear to target June 27, 2005, in New Orleans, LA, will industry to schedule one-on-one
swordfish and tunas. However, the automatically receive valid protected training at the expense of the individual
techniques, equipment, and protocols species workshop certificates prior to (i.e., trainer fees), if they are unable to
taught at the workshops, although January 1, 2007. The certification must attend any of the previously scheduled
specific to sea turtles, could be used to be renewed prior to the expiration date workshops.
safely disengage hooks in other fish, printed on the workshop certificate and Comment 10: Some identification
such as billfish and sharks, and/or will need to be renewed prior to training should be provided to the
mammals that may be encountered. As renewing their HMS permit. Generally, owners and operators during the release
NMFS collects additional data regarding the certificate will expire every three and disentanglement workshops.
the best methods to use to release years consistent with the expiration date Response: Species identification is
billfish and other species, NMFS may of the permit. However, if the certificate vital for determining how best to handle
consider modifying the existing is received during a month that is not a de-hooking event, and also enhances
workshops to include information on the owner’s or operator’s birth month, the amount and quality of data available
releasing these other species. Until that the certificate may expire in slightly less regarding protected species interactions.
time, use of the dehooking equipment or slightly more than three years. For Accurate species identification is also
and protocols could be employed to example, if the person’s birth month is important for compliance with HMS
safely dehook and release billfish and June and they receive the certificate in fishery regulations, including the
other non-target species. This use could March, the certificate would be valid for avoidance of prohibited species,
increase post-release survival rates of slightly more than three years from the maintaining quota limits, and accurate
non-target species. While workshop date of completion of the workshop. data collection. NMFS intends to make
attendance and certification would not Those who participated in the industry- education a key component of the
be mandatory for recreational sponsored workshops will have three workshops, and will provide workshop
fishermen, these individuals are years from their permit renewal in 2007 participants with training to safely
welcome to attend voluntarily any of the to renew their workshop certification. disentangle, resuscitate, and release sea
workshops on safe handling, release, Should new information or protocols turtles, as well as identify and release
and identification to become more become available prior to re-certification other protected species such as marine
familiar with these techniques and of any owner or operator, NMFS will mammals and smalltooth sawfish. Sea
protocols. disseminate the new information or turtle identification guides are also
available on the internet at http:// The workshop certification will not be takings procedures, owners/operators
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/. Some transferable to any other person and will might have to defend themselves in
marine mammal identification state the name of the permit holder on courts of law for violating ESA. EPA
information can be obtained from the the certificate. If acquiring an HMS stated that if one considers the time
Office of Protected Resources website: limited access permit (LAP) from a invested in attending a one-day
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/ previous permit holder, the new owner workshop, this measure seems like a
mammals/. The HMS website also will need to obtain a workshop bargain. EPA questioned the assumption
contains a link (HMS ID Guide) to the certification prior to transferring the inherent in the cost/earnings analysis
Rhode Island Sea Grant bookstore where permit into the new owner’s name. This that accepts the premise that time spent
you may purchase identification guides requirement ensures that every HMS becoming qualified to practice longline
for marine mammals, sharks, tunas, and limited access permit (LAP) owner is fishing is time lost, and of no value.
billfish. fully aware of and accountable for the Response: NMFS acknowledges that
Comment 11: NMFS received several mandatory protocols that must be many trades and professions require
comments on alternatives A6 and A16, followed on board a vessel with longline practitioners to obtain licenses
certification renewal timetable. Those gear. demonstrating competence. However,
comments include: renewal of the The initial operator certification will there is still an economic opportunity
workshop certification should occur be linked to the renewal of the vessel’s cost associated with any required
every three years; NMFS should HMS LAP(s) in 2007. If the vessel owner activity that would not otherwise be
recertify every three years, but holds multiple HMS LAPs, the operator taken voluntarily. In the case of
recertification every five years would be would need to be certified prior to the analyzing the economic costs associated
better; recertification more frequently earliest expiration date on any of the with workshop alternatives, NMFS
than every three years would be too permits in 2007. After the initial assumed the activity that workshop
much; the workshop certification certification, the operator’s workshop participants would be engaged in, if
requirement could be an impediment to certificate would need to be renewed they were not attending the workshop,
someone selling a vessel if one cannot prior to the expiration date on the would be fishing. NMFS’s use of wage
transfer the certification; certification operator’s workshop certificate. rates from primary job activities as the
should be tied to the operator, not the Comment 12: PLL, BLL, and gillnet opportunity cost of engaging in other
vessel; and, the EPA supports vessel owners may need to be allowed activities is commonly accepted practice
alternative A6. proxies as well as dealers. NMFS should by economists.
Response: Under the selected consider a proxy for elderly owners. NMFS recognizes that the training
alternative, owners and operators of Response: The 2004 BiOp specifically provided by workshops is valuable to
HMS longline and shark gillnet vessels requires captains to be certified in the fishermen and may offset some
will be required to renew the mandatory safe handling, release, and identification unquantifiable portion of the
protected species safe handling, release, protocols. This rule requires that opportunity costs that were estimated.
and identification workshop operators, not captains, attend these The opportunity cost estimates provided
certification every three years. A three- workshops as operators are already in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP
year period for recertification will defined in the regulations as the ‘‘master were considered to be upper bounds on
maintain proficiency in the release, or other individual aboard and in charge the potential economic costs associated
disentanglement and identification of that vessel.’’ This rule also requires with attending workshops. Information
protocols, and allow NMFS to update vessel owners for vessels employing quantifying the economic value of time
owners and operators on new research longline or gillnet gear to attend the spent at the workshops is not currently
and developments related to the subject workshops to educate the vessel owner available to further refine the upper
matter while not placing an excessive in the protocols, requirements, and bound cost estimates used in the
burden on the participants (e.g., lost responsibilities of participating in the economic analysis of workshop
fishing time and travel to attend commercial shark or swordfish alternatives.
workshops). NMFS considered commercial fisheries. Vessel owners
will be held accountable for preventing ii. Atlantic Shark Identification
recertifying owners and captains every
their vessel from engaging in fishing Workshops
five years, but determined that it allows
a more extensive period of time to lapse activities without a certified operator on Comment 14: NMFS received several
between certification workshops, board. NMFS is concerned that vessel comments in support of alternative A9,
possibly affecting proficiency and the owners would select proxies that are not mandatory Atlantic shark identification
ability to obtain the latest updates on involved with the day-to-day operation workshops for all shark dealers. Those
research and development of safe of their vessel, thus compromising the comments include: dealers should be
handling and dehooking protocols. goals of these workshops and weakening required to attend the shark
NMFS also considered recertifying the vessel owner’s accountability for the identification workshops; if shark
owners and operators every two years, activities conducted on board the vessel. dealers cannot properly identify a fish,
but did not select the option because it Non-compliance with the requirements their license and ability to be a dealer
would likely have the greatest economic of the 2003 and 2004 BiOps could result should be permanently revoked;
burden for the participants due to in additional, more restrictive workshops for species identification are
increased frequency. Federally management measures in the future. generally unnecessary for commercial
permitted shark dealers will also be Comment 13: EPA commented that fishermen although shark identification
required to renew the mandatory the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP would workshops may be necessary for dealers
Atlantic shark identification workshop be improved by providing a more or recreational fishermen; NMFS needs
certification on a three-year timetable. A balanced discussion of workshop costs, to rename the Identification Workshops
renewal frequency of three years and noted that in today’s society, most as being Shark and not HMS, since only
ensures proficiency in shark trades and professions require shark dealers are expected to be in
identification and will provide an practitioners to obtain licenses attendance and certified at identifying
update on new developments in shark demonstrating competence. sharks, not tunas; NMFS should have
identification and HMS regulations. Additionally, without authorized two days of training, one mandatory
(dealers) and one voluntary (fishermen, will not help with conservation; and, federally permitted shark dealers will be
public, etc); workshops give the dealer the Agency should focus its efforts on required to attend the Atlantic shark
a good housekeeping seal of approval; the directed shark fishermen that are identification workshops. The dealer’s
NMFS should consider prioritizing the actually landing sharks and dealers with ability to renew a Federal dealer permit
certification of shark dealers because the 90 percent of the catch. will be conditioned upon the successful
universe is so large; prioritization of Response: Under the selected completion of the workshop. The
shark dealers could be based upon a alternatives, Atlantic shark purpose of the Atlantic shark
minimum annual purchase of shark identification workshops will be identification workshops is to improve
products; and, EPA supported mandatory for federally permitted shark the data collected from the fishery,
alternative A9, stating that accurate dealers, but, to the extent possible, these thereby improving quota monitoring
species identification is necessary for workshops would be open to other and stock assessments. Dealer reports
compliance with HMS fishery interested individuals (e.g., individuals are an important data source for quota
regulations, including avoidance of participating in the shark fishery, port monitoring and management decisions;
prohibited species, maintaining quota agents, law enforcement officers, state and therefore, these workshops will
limits, and also for accurate data shark dealers, and recreational have greater impact on improving the
collection. fishermen) on a voluntary basis. Under accuracy of the shark species
Response: Under the selected this rule, federally permitted shark identification. While the recreational
alternative, A9, NMFS renamed the dealers will be required to take this fishery also contributes to shark
HMS identification workshops as training in an effort to reduce misidentification, mandatory attendance
Atlantic shark identification workshops unclassified shark landings and improve for the angling community would not
because only federally permitted shark species-specific landings data. resolve the data quality issues
dealers will be required to attend the Improvements in shark dealer data will associated with commercial vessel
workshops and receive certification. improve existing quota monitoring logbooks and dealer reports. Thus, quota
Identification training will be focused programs as well as improve the monitoring and commercial regulatory
on various species of sharks likely to be accuracy of future stock assessments. compliance would not benefit from
encountered by the dealer in both whole With improved shark identification, mandatory angler attendance as they
and dressed form. These mandatory dealers will be more accountable for the would under mandatory shark dealer
identification workshops will improve sharks purchased, potentially certification. Commercial and
the ability of shark dealers to identify discouraging the purchase of prohibited recreational shark fishermen are not
sharks to the species level and will species. If there is no market for required to attend the Atlantic shark
improve the data collected for quota prohibited species, fishermen may identification workshops, but to the
monitoring, stock assessments, and modify their behavior and safely release extent possible, the workshops will be
decision making processes for any incidental catch of prohibited open to anyone who wishes to attend
formulating appropriate fishery species. To train and certify the greater and receive certification. The money
management strategies. While than 25,000 anglers that participate in and time required to track and link
mandatory for shark dealers, these the HMS recreational fishery exceeds permits to the workshop certification, to
workshops will be open to other the Agency’s resources at this time. hold an appropriate number of
interested individuals, to the extent While commercial and recreational workshops to certify all HMS anglers
possible. Workshop locations will be shark fishermen will not be required to permit holders (over 25,000
based on dealer permit addresses. A attend the Atlantic shark identification individuals), and to enforce the
schedule of workshops will be available workshops, to the extent possible the workshop requirement for all HMS
in advance to allow dealers to select the workshops will be open to anyone who angler permit holders currently exceed
workshop most convenient to their wishes to attend and receive the Agency’s resources. In the future,
schedule. The Agency may provide an certification. In the future, additional additional actions may be taken to
opportunity for the industry to schedule actions may be taken to improve the improve the data collected from the
one-on-one training at the expense of data collected from the HMS HMS recreational industry.
the individual (i.e., trainer costs), if they recreational industry. Comment 17: NMFS received two
are unable to attend any of the Comment 16: NMFS received comments about mandatory workshops
previously scheduled workshops. comments on Alternative A15, for state shark dealers. Those comments
Comment 15: NMFS received several mandatory attendance at HMS are: HMS identification workshops
comments concerned about the identification workshops for all HMS should be held for state dealers to
effectiveness of the Atlantic shark Angling category permit holders. Those encompass the entire universe of dealers
identification workshops for only shark comments include: mandatory reporting unclassified sharks; and,
dealers. The comments include: limiting attendance for all HMS Angling category NMFS needs more information on state
HMS identification workshops to permit holders would be a substantial shark landings. The Agency is wasting
dealers only will mean proper species undertaking; HMS identification the industry’s time requiring the wrong
identification will come too late for workshops should be mandatory for all people to attend these workshops.
prohibited species such as dusky sharks fishermen that land sharks; HMS Response: NMFS does not have
and such a strategy will not address Angling category permit holders should jurisdiction over state permitted shark
problems with recreational compliance. also have to attend because they are the dealers and cannot require their
NMFS should expand the required primary misidentification and non- attendance at Federal workshops.
audience at the HMS identification reporting problem; most commercial However, to the extent possible, the
workshops and/or expand the scope of fishermen know how to identify species; Atlantic shark identification workshops
the protected species workshops to and, some of the species identification would be open to other interested
include identification and safe release of problem is an angler problem. individuals, including state shark
prohibited shark species; the Response: At this time, Atlantic shark dealers, on a voluntary basis. To
identification workshop for dealers only identification workshops will not be purchase sharks from a federally
is not enough. It will help with data required for HMS Angling category permitted vessel, a state shark dealer
collection and stock assessments, but it permit holders. Under this rule, all must also possess a Federal shark dealer
permit and, therefore, will be required workshops will improve the ability of unforeseen circumstances, NMFS
to attend the workshops. shark dealers to identify sharks to the should have some flexibility on
Comment 18: NMFS should require species level. NMFS anticipates that allowing the fishhouse to continue
port agents to attend these workshops to these workshops will improve the data operating until a replacement is found
improve their shark identification skills. collected to assess stock status and and certified; a trained and certified
Law enforcement needs to learn how to decision making processes for dealer representative must be present at
identify sharks. formulating appropriate fishery all times whenever HMS catches are
Response: This action does not management strategies. offloaded to be responsible for ensuring
require port agents or law enforcement Comment 20: NMFS received that all HMS landings are monitored
to attend the Atlantic shark comments on the workshop materials and properly documented; dealers
identification workshops. The intent of and the need to hold shark should be allowed more than one proxy
this action is to reduce the number of identification workshops. These if requested; ‘‘Dockside Technicians’’
unknown sharks in the shark dealer comments include: NMFS will need should be allowed as a proxy for the fish
reports; therefore shark dealers or their pictures of all the shark species to teach dealer who may not be present during
proxy are required to attend the proper identification. Those pictures vessel pack-outs; the DEIS/proposed
workshop. To the extent practicable, the will need to include pictures of dressed rule has some good ideas for proxies,
Agency will notify law enforcement fish, whole fish, and fins of each but NMFS will need to be careful about
officials and port agents of workshops in species, especially prohibited species; a lapse between proxies, should the
their respective regions and encourage and, NMFS should consider enlisting individual leave the business; and, there
them to attend these workshops to members of the industry to help with must be a fast track way to get certified
improve their identification skills, these workshops. if a proxy leaves, such as online
especially since port agents are often Response: NMFS would coordinate certification.
responsible for the collection of with local shark dealers to have some Response: Under this final rule, all
biological information on many species dressed sharks available for each federally permitted shark dealers will be
that the Agency manages. Furthermore, workshop. If the workshops are held required to obtain an Atlantic shark
law enforcement officials also need to after a closure or in an area where no identification workshop certification.
identify sharks to the species level to carcasses are available, NMFS would NMFS encourages shark dealers to send
enforce regulations related to seasons, use other tools, such as photo as many proxies as necessary to train
minimum sizes, bag limits, and trip presentations and dichotomous keys, to staff members responsible for shark
limits. Port agents and law enforcement present methods for identifying dressed species identification within the
officials are required to attend rigorous sharks to the species level. The Agency dealer’s business. Federally permitted
training on the identification of HMS intends to use a combination of dressed shark dealers will be responsible for
regulated species; however, the material sharks, fins, photo presentations, and ensuring that the appropriate
that will be covered in these workshops dichotomous keys to improve species- individuals receive the proper training
might provide additional information on specific shark carcass identification. in shark identification. Federally
morphological characteristics to The success of the Atlantic shark permitted shark dealers will be
facilitate shark identification in various identification workshops will depend encouraged to share the workshop
conditions at landing (i.e., no fins, no upon cooperation between the Agency information and training with
head, several days since landing, and and the industry. individuals that were unable to attend
gutted). Because port agents and law Comment 21: Please consider Houma the workshop. Multiple proxies for each
enforcement do receive some as a location to conduct the shark dealer federally permitted shark dealer will
identification training and are not workshops, if selected. better ensure that every dealer has at
directly involved with reporting shark Response: NMFS would not be able to least one person on staff who possesses
landings, the Atlantic shark hold workshops at every shark dealer workshop certification and the skills
identification workshops are only facility; however, the Agency examined necessary to properly identify sharks if
mandatory for shark dealers at this time. the number and location of shark another proxy’s employment is
Comment 19: It is very difficult to sell dealers in each region, and would work terminated. The schedule for Atlantic
‘‘unknown’’ sharks in the market and to provide workshops in areas that are shark identification workshops will be
sharks are being listed as unclassified convenient to the greatest number of available in advance to allow dealers
because it is the path of least resistance people. A preliminary evaluation of and proxies to select the workshop
when they are reporting. dealers in the southern Louisiana region closest to them and most convenient to
Response: Landings data from 2004 shows that Houma proportionally does their schedule. If a dealer or proxy is not
indicate that the number of unclassified not land the most sharks in the region, able to attend a scheduled workshop,
large coastal, small coastal, and pelagic but is central to other locations. As NMFS will consider one-on-one training
shark landings was 19 percent, 0.3 suggested, the Agency will consider at the expense of the individual. These
percent, and 53 percent of total shark Houma as a potential site for an Atlantic one-on-one training sessions could also
landings. These percentages indicate shark identification workshop. accommodate the replacement of a
that a significant number of sharks enter Comment 22: NMFS received several proxy whose employment was
the market as unclassified, despite comments on allowing a proxy to attend terminated on short notice.
regulations that require species-specific the Atlantic shark identification
reporting by vessel owners and dealers. workshops for the shark dealers. Those iii. Other Workshop Related Comments
NMFS does not know if sharks are being comments are: NMFS should allow a Comment 23: NMFS received several
listed as unclassified because fishermen purchase agent proxy to attend instead comments on outreach beyond the two
and dealers are unable to identify them, of the shark dealer permit owner; NMFS workshops. These comments included:
to circumvent restrictions, or because it needs to consider all of the truck drivers regardless of who is required to attend
is the most expeditious manner to operating under the single NMFS shark the workshops, the Agency should do
process the catch as the commenter dealer permit who purchase sharks at-sea identification; a field guide
suggests. However, NMFS believes that products from satellite locations; if a should be sent out to all HMS permit
mandatory Atlantic shark identification shark dealer loses his proxy due to holders; NMFS should provide
waterproof field identification materials; Response: The Agency’s priority is to per day for owners, captains, and crew
manuals should be developed on the make the workshops as successful and were then multiplied by the number of
proper billfish and tuna release effective as possible. Due to the nature participants expected for each workshop
handling procedures; and, HMS of workshop subject matter, hands-on alternative to estimate the opportunity
Identification Guide should be required training and interaction with the cost for a one day workshop. The
on board permitted vessels and in the workshop leader is vital for initial skill economic impacts (i.e., out of pocket
office of HMS permitted fish dealers. development and certification for the cash costs) associated with attending
The Guide could also be made available protected species safe handling, release, workshops is likely to be less than the
online. and identification workshops, as well as economic opportunity costs estimated
Response: The HMS website (http:// the Atlantic shark identification since NMFS plans on scheduling
www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/) currently workshops. Once the first round of workshops on less productive fishing
provides a variety of information on certifications are complete, NMFS will days to avoid lost time at sea.
several HMS and protected species, explore alternative means for renewing Comment 26: If training and
including a tutorial on sea turtle permits, including online or mail-in certification is mandated, it is essential
identification and handling, and a link options. The Agency also hopes to that NMFS ensure that adequate funding
to purchase the waterproof HMS develop an online program that will and personnel resources are dedicated
identification guide from Rhode Island provide up-to-date information to develop and fully support all program
Sea Grant, as well as the safe handling regarding HMS identification and facets.
and release protocols and placards in protected species handling techniques. Response: The Agency agrees and is
three different languages (English, To facilitate coordination between fully aware of the ramifications of these
Spanish, and Vietnamese). Curriculum workshops and regular business workshops and the need to implement
for the Atlantic shark identification activities, NMFS plans to do a focused them successfully. Numerous
workshops is in development. However, mailing to permit holders to ensure that individuals, with a variety of expertise
current plans include distributing the workshop times and locations are and backgrounds have been involved in
waterproof identification materials at known in advance. This will allow the implementation of the voluntary
the protected species workshops, as workshop participants to plan workshop workshops to date, and will be involved
well as distributing and training attendance accordingly and prevent in any future mandatory workshops,
participants to use a key for lapses in fishing activities. including: shark identification and
distinguishing species-specific features Comment 25: How did NMFS analyze biology, fishing gear technology and
at Atlantic shark identification the economic impacts of attending these deployment, safe release and handling
workshops. NMFS recommends that workshops? of protected resources, vessel
these materials be readily accessible in Response: NMFS conducted an permitting, fisheries law enforcement,
dealer offices and onboard fishing opportunity cost analysis to determine and shark carcass identification.
vessels, and encourages workshop the economic costs associated with Comment 27: NMFS should consider
participants to share knowledge gained attending the various workshop how to ensure compliance with this
with their crew and other employees. alternatives. This analysis used requirement and should have a plan to
While NMFS would like to distribute economic information obtained from the measure the effectiveness of the
the HMS guide to all HMS permit HMS logbook, specifically the economic workshops.
holders, the resources to do so are not costs section that is required to be Response: Successful completion of
currently available. completed by selected vessels. For both workshops will be linked to the
Comment 24: NMFS received several vessels that completed the economic renewal of the owner’s or dealer’s HMS
comments about providing an expedited costs section of the HMS logbook in permits. Longline and gillnet vessel
means for receiving the training, 2004, revenues per trip were estimated owners must be certified in the safe
certification, and renewal. Those by taking the number of fish caught per release and disentanglement protocols
comments include: there should be trip, multiplying the number of fish by before they can renew their limited
internet training and certification; can average weights for each species access permits. Additionally, longline
HMS identification workshops and harvested, and multiplying the total and gillnet vessels may not engage in
renewals occur online?; certification weights for each species by average fishing operations without a certified
over the internet might not suffice, prices for each species as reported in the operator onboard, as well as proof of
however, recertification might be dealer landings system. The costs owner and operator certification.
possible; to facilitate normal turnover, reported for each trip were then Similarly, Federal shark dealers must be
review and busy schedules, NMFS subtracted from the estimated revenue certified in shark identification, or have
could conduct training via the internet for each trip. Then the number of days a certified employee, to renew their
and/or by mail; NMFS needs to provide at sea as reported in logbooks was used dealer permit. NMFS will gauge the
a convenient way for new captains to be to determine the average net revenue success of these requirements by
certified prior to their first trip; initial per day at sea for each trip taken. monitoring compliance with the sea
certification for new vessel operators Finally, the information provided on turtle release and disentanglement
must be conveniently available, such as crew shares was used to allocate the net performance standards established in
a self-course over the internet or revenue per day at sea to owner, the 2004 BiOp, as well as by monitoring
overnight mail; vessel operations should captain, and crew. Information from the the number of unclassified sharks
not be held up unnecessarily; NMFS HMS permits database was then used to reported by Federal dealers.
needs to make sure to develop a estimate the potential number of Comment 28: NMFS received
streamlined approach to keeping this participants in each of the workshop comments suggesting that the Agency
certification effort simple and alternatives. Since information on the provide the workshop materials in other
convenient so as to not to be a burden number of captains per permitted vessel languages, such as Spanish and
to all folks participating; hands-on was not available, NMFS conservatively Vietnamese, as well as English.
training is important; and, the first time estimated that there could be two Response: NMFS acknowledges the
going through the training must occur in captains per permit for PLL vessels and diversity of HMS fishery participants,
the workshop. one captain for all others. Net revenues and will make workshop materials
accessible to as many of its constituents Compliance guides and brochures can years), yellowfin discards (3.0 percent
as possible. While the workshops will be obtained from the HMS website or 166 discards/over three years), and
be conducted in English, NMFS hopes (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/). bigeye tuna discards (11.6 percent or
to provide workshop materials in other Under this final rule, NMFS requires 117 discards/over three years). Under
languages for distribution at and outside owners and operators to attend the second scenario of redistributed
of the workshops. Placards of sea turtle mandatory protected species safe effort (effort only redistributed in the
handling and release guidelines are handling, release, and identification Gulf of Mexico), NMFS predicted
currently available in English, Spanish, workshops. Furthermore, shark dealers increases in sailfish discards (1.8
and Vietnamese. To the extent (or their designated proxy(ies)) must percent or 18 discards/over three years),
practicable, the Agency will work to attend Atlantic shark identification spearfish discards (3.3 percent or 14
develop shark identification materials in workshops. In doing so, NMFS may discards/over three years), pelagic shark
these languages as well. consider the use of web-based training discards (0.3 percent or 112 discards/
Comment 29: NMFS received several as a suitable media for disseminating over three years), large coastal shark
comments related to alternative A17, training information following an initial discards (3.6 percent or 598 discards/
Compliance with and Understanding of workshop. over three years), swordfish discards
HMS Regulations. Those comments (4.4 percent or 1,635 discards/over three
include: compliance and increased B. Time/Area Closures years), yellowfin discards (22.3 percent
understanding of HMS regulations i. New Closures or 1,224 discards/over three years),
could be addressed by mailing an bigeye tuna discards (0.4 percent or 4
Comment 1: Alternative B2(a)
updated HMS Compliance Guide to discards/over three years), and BAYS
indicates that there would be ecological
each HMS recreational and commercial tuna discards (1.0 percent or 91
benefits to leatherback sea turtles and
permit holder each year; workshops on discards/over three years). Finally,
blue and white marlin, yet this
the regulations are unnecessary as long under the third scenario (redistribution
alternative was given cursory treatment.
as brochures are available; the proposed in the Gulf of Mexico and Area 6),
Response: NMFS comprehensively
workshops should cover new regulatory NMFS predicted increases in sailfish
analyzed the ecological and economic
requirements, such as the new PLL TRT (4.7 percent or 61 discards/over three
impacts of all alternatives, including
regulations; there are no alternatives in years), pelagic sharks (4.4 percent or 834
the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP for alternative B2(a), in the Draft and Final
discards/over three years), BFT discards
workshops on HMS regulations. The Consolidated HMS FMPs, consistent
(1.6 percent or 35 discards/over three
GMFMC recommends that an interactive with the analytical requirements of
years), and BAYS tuna discards (0.7
web-based tutorial be available to NEPA, the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
percent or 70 discards/over three years).
improve the understanding and ATCA, and other laws. In the Draft
Given the potential negative ecological
compliance with HMS regulations. This Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS
impact of B2(a) under all three
training should be mandatory for investigated potential changes in redistribution of effort scenarios, NMFS
commercial captains; and, NMFS bycatch and discards with and without is not implementing alternative B2(a) at
should consider mandatory recreational the redistribution of fishing effort for all this time.
compliance workshops because the time/area closure alternatives Comment 2: NMFS decided against
commercial vessels adhere to many U.S. considered. For alternative B2(a), NMFS any new closures to protect sea turtles,
regulations but less emphasis is placed evaluated a total of three scenarios of billfish, and other overexploited species
upon recreational compliance. redistributed effort (as well as a fourth at this time because there is no closure
Response: During scoping, NMFS scenario without redistribution of that will benefit all species. Closures
explored an alternative that focused on effort), each of which had different should not be rejected because they do
enhancing compliance with, and assumptions regarding how fishing not ‘‘solve’’ the bycatch problem on
understanding of, HMS regulations effort would be redistributed into open their own. Rather, they should be
using Agency sponsored workshops. areas. The first scenario assumed that coupled with other sensible measures to
NMFS received comments noting that fishing effort (i.e., hooks) from ensure that all species are receiving the
mandatory workshops need to be alternative B2(a) would be displaced protection they need to recover and
prioritized due to the time and cost to into all open areas. The second scenario maintain healthy populations.
those who must attend. Furthermore, assumed all fishing effort would only be Response: NMFS agrees that closures
comments were received in support of redistributed within the Gulf of Mexico. can be combined with other measures to
continuing the current methods of The third scenario assumed that fishing achieve management objectives.
disseminating information pertaining to effort would be displaced within the However, NMFS did not reject closures
HMS regulations (e.g., Annual HMS Gulf of Mexico and into an area (i.e., because there was not a closure that
Compliance Guide) rather than Area 6) where the majority of vessels benefited all species. To the contrary,
spending Federal dollars to conduct with Gulf of Mexico homeports have NMFS is not preferring the closures
workshops on the regulations at this been reported fishing during 2001 - because, in part, there were indications
time. Advisory Panel members 2004. that the closures could actually result in
supported focusing on mandatory All three of these scenarios predicted an increase in bycatch to the detriment
requirements (e.g., workshops required that bycatch and discards would of some species with the consideration
under BiOps and other mandates) first, increase for at least one of the species of redistributed effort. Additionally,
and then following up with additional considered. For instance, under the first NMFS does not prefer implementing
outreach materials to meet regulatory scenario, NMFS predicted an increase in new closures at this time, other than the
informational needs. NMFS already loggerhead sea turtle interactions (7.9 Madison-Swanson and Steamboat
disseminates this type of information percent or 14 turtles/over three years; Lumps Marine Reserves, for a number of
and, because this information can be annual numbers may be obtained by other reasons, including those discussed
distributed to participants attending dividing by three), bluefin tuna (BFT) below in this response. All of the data
NMFS sponsored workshops, this discards (10.3 percent or 166 discards/ used in the time/area analyses were
alternative was not further analyzed in over three years), swordfish discards based on J-hook data. The Northeast
the Consolidated HMS FMP. (4.4 percent or 1,635 discards/over three Distant experiment suggested that circle
hooks likely have a significantly discards (dead and alive) by all gear times where bycatch was concentrated.
different catch rate than J-hooks; further types. In addition, sea surface When identifying areas to consider,
investigations are required to determine temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico have NMFS also took into account
the potential impact of any new time/ recently been thought to be associated information received in a petition for
area closures. The final logbook data with congregations of BFT and putative rulemaking to consider an additional
recently became available. NMFS is BFT spawning grounds in the Gulf of closure (alternative B2(c)) to reduce BFT
beginning to analyze that data. NMFS Mexico (Block, pers. comm.). NMFS discards in a reported spawning area in
also continues to monitor and analyze intends to investigate the variability the Gulf of Mexico (Blue Ocean Institute
the effect of circle hooks on catch rates associated with sea surface temperatures et al., 2005; Block et al., 2005), and a
and bycatch reduction as well as assess as well as the temporal and spatial settlement agreement relating to white
the cumulative affect of current time/ consistency of the association of BFT marlin, which was approved by the
area closures and circle hooks. NMFS with these temperature regimes. By court in Center for Biological Diversity
does not prefer to implement new better understanding what influences v. NMFS, Civ. Action No. 04–0063
closures until the effect of current the distribution and timing of BFT in (D.D.C.). Using the preferred alternative
management measures, and potential the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS can work on B5, NMFS may consider additional
unanticipated consequences of those developing tailored management closures, including closures for juvenile
management measures, can be better measures over space and time to sandbar sharks and closures for other
understood. Second, NMFS is awaiting maximize ecological benefits while gear types, including gillnets and/or
additional information regarding the minimizing economic impacts to the recreational gear, in future rulemakings,
status of the pelagic longline (PLL) fleet extent practicable. as needed.
Comment 3: NMFS received several Comment 4: NMFS received several
after the devastating hurricanes in the
comments regarding additional closures comments in favor of maintaining
Gulf of Mexico during the fall of 2005.
to consider including: NMFS should existing time/area closures. These
A majority of the PLL fleet was thought
consider a time/area closure for comments included: time/area closures
to be severely damaged or destroyed
longlining from the 35th parallel to the should be used to promote conservation
during the 2005 hurricane season. The
41st parallel, from the 30 fathom line to of all HMS species; marine sanctuaries
amount of PLL fishing effort, especially
the 500 fathom line, from June 15 to need to be established for all species of
within the Gulf of Mexico, will be
September 30; NMFS should consider fish; these areas need to remain closed
assessed in the summer of 2006 when
longline closures around San Juan, until the fishery is rebuilt to the 1960s
data quality control procedures on the Puerto Rico and other areas around levels that existed prior to the
2005 HMS logbook data are complete. Puerto Rico; NMFS should pressure the overcapitalization of this fishery; as a
Until NMFS can better estimate the states north of the North Carolina closed result of the existing closures, overall
current fishing effort and potential area to close their state waters during discards have declined by as much as 50
recovery of the PLL fleet, it is premature April through July 31 to protect juvenile percent so NMFS should continue to
to implement any new time/area sandbar sharks; since the sandbar shark expand the existing closures; the
closures. Third, a number of stock HAPC includes a major U.S. nursery reductions in bycatch as a result of the
assessments will be conducted during area for this species, NMFS should close existing closures benefit a wide range of
2006 (LCS, blue marlin, white marlin, the Federal waters out to 10 fathoms species; current closed areas are
north and south swordfish, eastern and from April to July 31 each year; NMFS effective, based upon recent increases in
western BFT, and large coastal sharks). should reevaluate its decision not to swordfish size and weight in the deep-
NMFS is waiting on the results of these close the Northeast Central statistical water recreational swordfish fishery;
stock assessments to help determine area proposed as Alternative A14 in the and suggestions by the industry that the
domestic measures with regard to June 2004 SEIS; and, Georgia CRD closed area goals have been met because
management of these species. Once requests either the closure of the EEZ off swordfish are rebuilt ignore the broader
NMFS has this updated information, Georgia to gillnet gear to facilitate state purpose and benefit of the closures.
NMFS will consider additional enforcement and management efforts or Response: NMFS agrees that the
management measures, potentially for the requirement for shark gillnet vessels existing closures have effectively
all gear types, to help reduce bycatch to carry VMS year-round to facilitate reduced the bycatch of protected species
and discard rates. NMFS is also trying Georgia’s cooperative state/Federal and non-target HMS, and have provided
to assess how protecting one age class enforcement efforts. positive ecological benefits. NMFS
at the potential detriment of other age Response: While additional areas prefers to keep the existing closures in
classes will affect the fish stock as a could be considered for time/area place at this time. For example, the
whole. For instance, how will protecting closures, NMFS considered a range of overall number of reported discards of
spawning BFT help rebuild the stock if different closures that encompassed the swordfish, BFT, and bigeye tunas,
it results in increased discards of non- major areas of bycatch for the greatest pelagic sharks, blue and white marlin,
spawning adults, juvenile, and sub- number of species of concern. Due to sailfish, and spearfish have all declined
adult BFT along the eastern seaboard? the number of bycatch concerns by more than 30 percent. The reported
More information is needed to further regarding the pelagic longline fishery discards of blue and white marlin
understand how to manage this species and the availability of data, most of the declined by about 50 percent, and
given its complex migratory patterns, analyses for potential closures focused sailfish discards declined by almost 75
life history, and age structure. NMFS is on the pelagic longline fishery. percent. The reported number of sea
also considering developing incentives Although some alternatives, such as turtles caught and released declined by
that would dissuade fishermen from preferred alternative B4, affect almost 28 percent. However, these
keeping incidentally caught BFT, additional HMS fisheries such as the analyses are based on J-hook data, and
particularly spawning BFT, in the Gulf recreational fishery. The majority of the the fishery is required to use circle
of Mexico. This may involve research on areas were initially selected by plotting hooks. It is possible that the impact of
how changes in fishing practices may and examining the HMS logbook and such closures since implementation of
help reduce bycatch of non-target Pelagic Observer Program (POP) data circle hooks may be greater in ecological
species as well as the tracking of from 2001 - 2003 to identify areas and benefits than expected. If this happens,
NMFS may not need to implement new percent. Such declines in landings have Mexico during BFT spawning season, as
closures and may be able to reduce resulted in negative economic impacts described in Alternative B2(c), would be
existing closures. NMFS currently only for the fleet and may explain the overall minimal; why does NMFS assume that
has final, quality controlled HMS decline in effort by the Atlantic PLL a longline closure in the Gulf of Mexico
logbook data on the catch associated fishery from the pre- to post-closure would cause a redistribution of effort to
with circle hooks from July through period. Thus, while time/area closures areas where BFT discards could
December of 2004. NMFS anticipates play an important part in resource increase; and, what are the positive and
having final, quality controlled 2005 management, NMFS does not prefer to negative economic consequences of
HMS logbook data in the summer of implement new closures, except for the allowing longline fishing to continue in
2006. At that time, NMFS will examine Madison-Swanson and Steamboat the Gulf of Mexico during BFT
and analyze the effect of circle hooks on Lumps Marine Reserves, until NMFS spawning season?
catch rates and bycatch reduction. Any can assess the cumulative effect of the Response: NMFS considered a wide
changes to the existing closures would current time/area closures and circle range of alternatives ranging from
occur through a proposed and final hooks. In addition, NMFS is waiting for maintaining existing closures (No
rulemaking using the criteria in the additional information regarding the Action) to a complete prohibition of PLL
preferred alternative B5. status of the PLL fleet after the gear in all areas in order to reduce the
Comment 5: NMFS received a number devastating hurricanes in the Gulf of bycatch and bycatch mortality of non-
of comments in opposition to closures Mexico during the fall of 2005. A target HMS and protected species, such
including: the effectiveness of time/area portion of the PLL fleet was thought to as sea turtles, in Atlantic HMS fisheries.
closures as a management tool to be severely damaged or destroyed After comparing the potential bycatch
address bycatch issues has been during the 2005 hurricane season. Until reduction for all of the closures that
exhausted; bycatch measures other than NMFS can better estimate the current NMFS initially considered (see Chapter
time/area closures should be fishing effort and potential recovery of 2 of the FEIS for a description of
considered; closures are not the PLL fleet, NMFS believes that it is alternatives), NMFS chose five closures
conservation, but reallocation to premature to implement any new time/ with the highest overall bycatch for
prohibit one hook and line gear area closures, particularly on the PLL further analysis. Alternative B2(c),
(especially, circle hook gear) while fleet. closing 101,670 nm2 in the Gulf of
allowing another hook and line gear Mexico from April through June, was
(especially, more harmful J-style hook ii. BFT/Gulf of Mexico chosen for analysis in response to a
gear and live baiting); these areas were Comment 6: NMFS received petition received by NMFS from several
closed to rebuild the now fully rebuilt comments regarding time/area closures conservation organizations requesting
swordfish stock; an alternative to a full to protect BFT spawning areas in the consideration of a closure of the ‘‘Gulf
area closure could be to conduct an Gulf of Mexico (Alternatives B2(c) and of Mexico BFT spawning area’’ (Blue
experimental fishery to test gear B2(d)). Some of these comments Ocean Institute et al., 2005). The times
modifications - if the modifications do suggested NMFS should consider and areas analyzed for alternative B2(c)
not work then put in a full closure; and different months or permutations of were directly from the petition.
the pelagic longline industry cannot months between January and August. Alternative B2(d) was chosen for
withstand additional time/area closures. Other comments included: NMFS analysis in order to determine if any
Response: NMFS does not believe that should implement additional measures other closure, or combination of
the effectiveness of time/area closures as to protect the Atlantic BFT biomass, closures, would be more effective at
a management tool has been exhausted. especially spawning fish in the Gulf of reducing bycatch than some of the other
The existing closures have effectively Mexico; NMFS should consider closing alternatives considered. The analyses
reduced the bycatch of protected species the Gulf of Mexico to protect spawning indicated that almost all of the closures
and many non-target HMS, and have BFT and analyze different time periods and combinations of closures
provided positive ecological benefits. in combination with the northeast considered for white marlin, BFT, or sea
For example, the overall number of closures during months of high discards turtles would result in a net increase in
reported discards of swordfish, BFT and or high CPUE that might address effects bycatch for at least some of the primary
bigeye tunas, pelagic sharks, blue and on loggerhead sea turtles; an area south species considered when redistribution
white marlin, sailfish, and spearfish of Louisiana surrounding known BFT of fishing effort was taken into account.
have all declined by more than 30 spawning areas should be closed to all In addition, the predicted reduction in
percent. The reported discards of blue longline fishing for a reasonable period bycatch when redistribution of fishing
and white marlin declined by about 50 of time — at a minimum this should effort was taken into account was
percent, and sailfish discards declined include the area identified in typically less than 30 percent for any
by almost 75 percent. The reported Alternative B2(c); the study in the given species with overall reduction in
number of sea turtles caught and journal ‘‘Nature’’ firmly establishes the the number of individual species being
released declined by almost 28 percent. time and location of the spawning very low.
Thus, the current time/area closures season and affords NMFS the According to Pelagic Observer
have had positive ecological impact by opportunity to close a hot spot based on Program (POP) data, without
reducing the overall bycatch of non- the best available science; Japan has redistribution of effort, alternative B2(c)
target and protected species. However, recommended a longline closure of the would reduce discards of all non-target
NMFS recognizes that the current entire Gulf of Mexico at ICCAT; NMFS HMS and protected resources from a
closures have had an impact on retained should immediately initiate interim or minimum of 2.3 percent for spearfish to
species’ landings as well. For example, emergency action to close the longline a maximum of 25.0 percent for other sea
from 1997 to 2003, the number of fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, starting in turtles (comprised of green, hawksbill,
swordfish kept declined by nearly 28 January of 2006 that would be effective and Kemp’s ridley sea turtles). Without
percent, the number of yellowfin tuna for six months each year from January redistribution of effort, the logbook data
kept declined by 23.5 percent, and the through June; NMFS should explain indicate that alternative B2(c) would
total number of BAYS kept (including why the ecological benefits of closing potentially reduce discards of all of the
yellowfin tuna) declined by 25.1 the longline fishery in the Gulf of species being considered from a
minimum of 0.8 percent for pelagic especially given the prevalence of larger Gulf of Mexico poses particular risks to
sharks to a maximum 21.5 percent for individuals in Northeast area from the BFT captured on longline gear due to
BFT. With redistribution of effort, POP data. Therefore, a closure like B2(b) the physiological stress caused in warm,
however, bycatch was predicted to may be able to protect a few spawning- low oxygen waters; and the spawning
increase for all species except size individuals as well as pre- fish in this time and place are more
leatherback and other sea turtles. Even spawners, or sub-adults, which are also valuable to the population than at other
BFT discards, which showed a fairly valuable age classes with regard to the times of year.
dramatic decline without redistribution stock (although, presumably, there is a Response: Although NMFS does not
of effort, were predicted to increase by mixture of eastern and western origin prefer alternative B2(c), or any other
9.8 percent with redistribution of effort. fish in this area, and a closure in this closure specific to spawning BFT in the
Alternative B2(d) would prohibit the area may protect sub-adults of western Gulf of Mexico at this time, NMFS plans
use of PLL gear by all U.S. flagged- as well as eastern origin). Furthermore, to pursue alternatives to reduce bycatch
vessels permitted to fish for HMS in a the total proportion of dead discards in in the Gulf of Mexico, especially for
162,181 nm2 area in the Gulf of Mexico the Northeast was similar to the Gulf of spawning BFT. Such actions could
west of 86 degrees W. long. year-round, Mexico. In the Northeast, 48 percent improve international rebuilding efforts
thus eliminating an area where (219 out of 461) of all BFT discards from of this species. NMFS is also
approximately 50 percent of all effort 2001 - 2003 were discarded dead, considering developing incentives that
(Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and whereas 53 percent (249 out of 470) of would dissuade fishermen from keeping
Caribbean) and 90 percent of all effort all BFT discards from the Gulf of incidentally caught BFT, particularly
in the Gulf of Mexico has been reported Mexico were discarded dead. Given the spawning BFT, in the Gulf of Mexico.
in recent years (2001 - 2003). Without high number of BFT discards in the This may involve research on how
the redistribution of effort, the closure Northeast, a smaller closure there may changes in fishing practices may help
could have resulted in large reductions provide similar ecological benefit reduce bycatch of non-target species as
in all non-target HMS, ranging from a compared with a closure in the Gulf of well as the tracking of discards (dead
10.1 percent reduction in loggerheads to Mexico (depending on post-release and alive) by all gear types. In addition,
83.5 percent reduction in spearfish survival rates in the two areas), and sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of
discards. With the redistribution of would minimize the economic impacts Mexico have recently been thought to be
effort, NMFS predicted a decrease in on the fleet. associated with congregations of BFT
discards of blue marlin (20.3 percent or NMFS will continue to pursue and putative BFT spawning grounds in
497 discards/over three years; annual alternatives to reduce bycatch of the Gulf of Mexico (Block, pers. comm.).
estimates can be obtained by dividing spawning BFT. NMFS has adopted all of NMFS intends to compare sea surface
by three), sailfish (26.8 percent or 276 the ICCAT recommendations regarding temperature data and logbook and/or
discards/over three years), and spearfish BFT, a rebuilding plan is in place observer data in order to investigate the
(73.3 percent or 276 discards/over three domestically for this species, and NMFS variability associated with sea surface
years). However, given the size and has implemented measures to rebuild temperatures as well as the temporal
timing of this closure (i.e., year-round), this overfished stock. NMFS is currently and spatial consistency of the
NMFS also predicted an increase in trying to assess how protecting one age association of BFT with these
white marlin discards (0.3 percent or 10 class at the potential detriment of other temperatures regimes. For this
age classes will affect the fish stock as investigation, NMFS will use existing
discards/over three years), loggerhead
a whole. For instance, how will data and will likely work with scientists
sea turtle interactions (65.5 percent or
protecting spawning BFT help rebuild to collect additional data and/or
117 turtles/over three years), BFT
the stock if it results in increased conduct experiments, as needed. By
discards (38 percent or 614 discards/
discards of non-spawning adults, better understanding what influences
over three years), swordfish discards
juveniles, and sub-adult BFT along the the distribution of BFT in the Gulf of
(31.9 percent or 11,718 discards/over
eastern seaboard? Therefore, more Mexico, NMFS can tailor management
three years), and bigeye tuna discards
information is needed to further measures over space and time to
(84.8 percent or 853 discards/over three
understand how to manage this species maximize ecological benefits while
years).
given its complex migratory patterns, minimizing economic impacts, to the
Other alternatives, such as alternative life history, and age structure. As extent practicable.
B2(b), which would close a much described above in Comment 2, NMFS Comment 8: NMFS should outline the
smaller area in the Northeastern United is also considering developing methods and mortality rates used to
States, could have greater benefits in incentives that would dissuade estimate dead discards as reported to
terms of the number of BFT discards fishermen from keeping incidentally ICCAT, and comment on the likely
reduced. Although alternative B2(b) is caught BFT, particularly spawning BFT associated uncertainty. The current
not considered a BFT spawning area, in the Gulf of Mexico. regulations are failing to implement key
data from the POP program indicate that Comment 7: NMFS received several provisions of the ICCAT rebuilding
large fish (>171 cm TL) are present in comments regarding the biology of plan, in violation of ATCA. The model
the area. Additionally, there is evidence spawning BFT in the Gulf of Mexico. used by NMFS in its Draft Consolidated
to indicate that the area is utilized as a These comments included: the HMS FMP assumes that the
feeding and staging area by BFT prior to management measures currently in reproductive value of western Atlantic
migrating to the Gulf of Mexico to place do not protect spawning BFT or BFT in the Atlantic Ocean off the
spawn (Block et al., 2005). Hence, while create the conditions necessary for BFT northeastern United States later in the
NMFS recognizes that the same to survive, reproduce, and increase their year is equivalent to that of BFT from
proportion of western spawning BFT population; under current U.S. March-June in the Gulf of Mexico. This
would not be protected from a closure regulations, almost half the BFT landed is a faulty and risky assumption. Does
in the Northeast as one in the Gulf of by longline fishermen come from the the analysis in the Draft Consolidated
Mexico, potentially a small proportion Gulf of Mexico when spawning fish are HMS FMP take into account the current
of western spawning-size BFT could be present which results in a significant de low stock status of western Atlantic
protected by a closure like B2(b), facto directed fishery; warm water in the BFT? The Draft Consolidated HMS FMP
is flawed when it does not prefer closing Data that includes fishing effort in other Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS
BFT spawning grounds because it countries EEZs would be included in considered areas specifically for white
erroneously analyzes the closure any analyses conducted by ICCAT, as marlin, per a settlement agreement
primarily with regard to minimizing needed. relating to white marlin (Center for
bycatch to the extent practicable. In fact, Comment 10: Demographics in the Biological Diversity v. NMFS, Civ.
the primary legal duty falls under the Gulf of Mexico have changed due to last Action No. 04–0063 (D.D.C.)). Based on
need to rebuild the western Atlantic summer’s hurricanes. No one knows the HMS logbook and POP data from
BFT population in as short a period of what the impacts of that will be. NMFS 2001 - 2003, potential time/area
time as possible. Overfishing continues should not rush into changes in the Gulf closures, other than the areas outlined
at high rates and the model used for the of Mexico that are not necessary. in the settlement agreement, were
rebuilding program is unrealistically Response: NMFS is aware that there predicted to result in larger ecological
optimistic. have been significant impacts in the benefits for all of the species
Response: The estimates of discards Gulf of Mexico as a result of the 2005 considered, including white marlin.
used in the analyses include both live hurricanes, which may take time to be Ultimately, NMFS chose to further
and dead discards, as reported by fully realized. After carefully reviewing analyze time/area closure boundaries
fishermen in logbooks. While NMFS the results of all the different time/area that included the areas of highest
ultimately used logbook data for the closures analyses, and in consideration interactions for a number of species.
time/area analyses, NMFS also of the many significant factors that have However, based on the results of these
compared estimates of discards from the recently affected the domestic PLL fleet, analyses and for the reasons discussed
POP data. As described in the responses NMFS does not prefer to implement any under the response to Comment 2,
to comments 31 and 32 of this section, new closures, except the NMFS chose not to implement any new
NMFS did not develop mortality complementary measures in the closures at this time beside the
estimates from the data. Rather, NMFS Madison-Swanson and Steamboat complementary measures in the
evaluated percent change in total Lumps closed areas at this time. As Madison-Swanson and Steamboat
discards as the measure of the described above in the response to Lumps Marine Reserves.
effectiveness of potential time/area Comment 2 in this section, this decision Comment 12: NMFS received a
closures. NMFS disagrees that the is based on a number of reasons number of comments on alternative
current regulations are failing to including the potential impacts of the B2(c) including: Alternative B2(c)
implement provisions of the rebuilding hurricanes on the PLL fleet. corresponds to the location of
plan. NMFS has adopted all of the iii. White Marlin significant incidental catches of white
ICCAT recommendations regarding marlin and leatherback sea turtles, so
BFT, a rebuilding plan is in place Comment 11: NMFS received several NMFS should consider that area for
domestically for this species, and NMFS comments in support of additional time/ closures, effort restrictions, or stricter
has implemented measures to rebuild area closures to protect white marlin. gear requirements rather than be
this overfished stock. For the PLL Comments included: NMFS should paralyzed in the search for a single
fishery, fishermen are not allowed to consider a closure for white marlin in time/area closure that will address all
target any BFT regardless of the size of the mid-Atlantic; NMFS has never bycatch reduction needs for more than
the BFT. Thus, the model used by implemented a time/area closure for a dozen species; NMFS should consider
NMFS to calculate discards in the PLL PLL fishing specifically to reduce blue closed areas in the western Gulf of
fishery did not make any assumptions and white marlin, or sailfish bycatch Mexico because that is where marlin are
about the reproductive value of BFT even though exceedingly high levels of being killed; Alternative B2(c) should be
caught in the PLL fishery. Rather, the bycatch occur; and NMFS must reduce closed from June through August to
intent of examining different closures marlin bycatch by closing areas to protect the greatest abundance of
was to maximize the potential reduction longline fishing when and where the billfish in the Gulf of Mexico; the Draft
in bycatch of the PLL fishery for the most bycatch continues to occur to Consolidated HMS FMP does not
greatest number of species, while avoid a white marlin ESA listing. propose a closure big enough or long
minimizing losses in target catch in the Response: While NMFS has never enough to meaningfully reduce billfish
PLL fishery. implemented a closure to specifically bycatch; U.S. and Japanese data show
Comment 9: NMFS received a reduce bycatch of blue and white that the bycatch of billfish is higher in
comment that the area in the ‘‘Nature’’ marlin, current closures (the the Gulf of Mexico than in any other
journal study extends beyond the U.S. Northeastern U.S. closure, the DeSoto part of the commercial fishery, and the
EEZ and so should the time/area closure Canyon closure, the Charleston Bump, closures to protect blue and white
considered in the Draft Consolidated the East Florida Coast closures, and the marlin in the Gulf of Mexico could save
HMS FMP. There is no legal reason to Northeast Distant closed area) have more of these species than any other
limit the closure to the U.S. EEZ. resulted in large decreases in blue and closure in the entire United States, yet
Response: While NMFS has analyzed white marlin discards from PLL gear, NMFS did not consider that there would
closures beyond the U.S. EEZ (e.g., the and billfish were considered in the be enough positive impact to consider
Northeast Distant closed area) in the analyses of these closures. Percent implementing a closure.
past, except for two relatively small change in discards from the HMS Response: As described above in
areas, the U.S. EEZ in the Gulf of logbook data before (1997 - 1999) versus Comment 6 of this section, NMFS
Mexico abuts the Mexican EEZ. U.S. after (2001 - 2003) the closures that were examined alternative B2(c) specifically
fishermen are not allowed to fish in the implemented showed an overall 47.5 in response to a petition for rulemaking
Mexican EEZ, and NMFS does not have percent decrease in white marlin regarding protection of spawning BFT.
the legal authority to regulate foreign discards and an overall 50.3 percent Under the full redistribution of fishing
fisheries that operate outside of the U.S. decrease in blue marlin discards. In effort model for B2(c) (fishing effort
EEZ. As such, the analyses in the Final addition, NMFS banned live bait in the distributed to all open areas), NMFS
HMS FMP were limited to the U.S. EEZ Gulf of Mexico for PLL vessels to help predicted an increase in white marlin
in the Gulf of Mexico utilizing logbook reduce billfish bycatch on August 1, discards (7.0 percent or 221 discards/
and POP data from the U.S. PLL fishery. 2000 (65 FR 47214). In the Draft over three years; annual estimates can
be found by dividing by three), blue which is closed to pelagic longlining and many of the swordfish being caught
marlin discards (2.0 percent or 50 during the month of June; the mid- by PLL fishermen were undersized and
discards/over three years), sailfish Atlantic Shark Closure, which is closed therefore discarded dead. However, the
discards (4.4 percent or 45 discards/over from January through July to bottom goal of the closures was to reduce
three years), loggerhead sea turtle longline gear; the Charleston Bump bycatch in general in the PLL fishery,
interactions (23.5 percent or 42 turtles/ closed area that is closed to PLL gear and analyses conducted for that
over three years), BFT discards (9.8 from February through April; and the rulemaking also indicated that closing
percent or 158 discards/over three East Florida Coast closure that is closed the area to PLL gear would reduce
years), swordfish discards (6.0 percent year-round to PLL gear. The Florida East bycatch and discards of other species as
or 2,218 discards/over three years), and Coast (FEC), the Mid-Atlantic Bight well. The closure was not intended to be
bigeye tuna discards (1.7 percent or 18 (MAB), and the Northeastern Coastal for all commercial fishing or to be
discards/over three years). Under the (NEC) statistical reporting areas cover permanent. Nor was the closure meant
second scenario of redistributed effort the extent of the U.S. Atlantic PLL to allow only recreational fishing in that
(redistribution in the Gulf of Mexico logbook reporting areas along the East area. Because the area is a swordfish
and Area 6), NMFS predicted increases Coast. Comparing the number of nursery area, it is likely that any fishing
in blue marlin discards (0.7 percent or discards for the months of July through gear in that area, particularly those
20 discards/over three years), sailfish December between the pre-closure fishing for swordfish, will catch
discards (21.7 percent or 283 discards/ period 1997 - 1999 and the period 2001 undersized swordfish that must be
over three years), spearfish discards (2.0 - 2003, when closures were in effect, discarded, as well as juvenile swordfish
percent or 10 discards/over three years), reported landings of white marlin that meet the legal minimum size. The
large coastal sharks (12.8 percent or decreased by 95.4 percent in the FEC, criteria in this final rule will allow
2,454 discards/over three years), 53.4 percent in the MAB, and 77.8 NMFS to consider closing the East
swordfish tuna discards (5.0 percent or percent in the NEC. Therefore, while Florida Coast to other gears to reduce
2,109 discards/over three years), and NMFS has not implemented a closure bycatch or for other reasons, or to
bigeye tuna discards (0.6 percent or 7 for white marlin specifically along the modify the closed area to PLL gear to
discards/over three years). Although East Coast, data show a substantial either expand or reduce it, as needed.
white marlin discards were predicted to decrease in white marlin discards likely NMFS considered modifications to the
decrease under the second scenario resulting from the current time/area closed area to allow PLL fishermen into
evaluated (by 2.6 percent or 98 discards/ closures along the eastern seaboard. an area that they claimed had swordfish
over three years), there were potential larger than the minimum size. The
iv. Current Closed Areas
negative ecological impacts of B2(c) for analyses for this rulemaking concluded
other species considered under the Comment 14: NMFS received several that swordfish in the potential re-
different scenarios of redistributed comments regarding the East Florida opened area are significantly larger than
effort. Therefore, NMFS does not prefer Coast closed area. These comments are: those in the remaining closed area;
alternative B2(c) at this time. NMFS should prohibit all commercial however, the analyses also indicated
Based on a submission by the fishing for swordfish in the East Florida potential increases in marlin bycatch.
Japanese at ICCAT on BFT management Coast closed area; NMFS should For this reason and others, NMFS is not
(Suzuki and Takeuchi, 2005), the eliminate all commercial shark fishing modifying the East Florida Coast closed
proposed closures and subsequent in the East Florida Coast closed area; area at this time. NMFS may consider
ecological benefits were based on NMFS should impose a 20–mile limit changes to that area or to the gears
closing the entire Gulf of Mexico and for the entire East Florida Coast that allowed to fish in that area in future
did not consider redistribution of would prohibit commercial fishing in rulemakings.
fishing effort. As described above in the area; NMFS should set a policy for
Comment 9 of this section, NMFS has the East Florida Coast closed area that v. Modifications to Current Closed
no jurisdiction to close the Mexican allows for recreational swordfish hook Areas
EEZ, and U.S. PLL vessels are and line fishing for a three to four Comment 15: NMFS received
prohibited from fishing in the Mexican month period or adopt management comments supporting and opposing
EEZ. NMFS also believes it is critical to measures that allow for recreational modifications of the existing HMS time/
consider the redistribution of fishing swordfish hook and line fishing only on area closures to allow additional fishing
effort before implementing management an every other year basis; NMFS needs effort into these areas. Comments in
measures, such as time/area closures, to protect the Florida east coast because support of modifying the existing
because potential increases in discards it is a nursery area for juvenile closures include: the existing time/area
and bycatch can result from time/area swordfish; NMFS should re-adjust the closures to protect small swordfish are
closures as effort is moved to remaining offshore border of the East Florida Coast no longer needed and should be
open areas. Additionally, as described Closed Area to allow PLL vessels a reduced in size and/or duration or
above in the response to Comment 3 and reasonable opportunity to harvest its eliminated all together; NMFS inaction
elsewhere in this document, NMFS is ICCAT quotas; and, NMFS should to adjust the offshore closure borders
considering future management reopen the offshore border because the prevents U.S. fishermen from having a
measures to minimize bycatch of non- inshore and Straits of Florida portions reasonable opportunity to harvest its
target HMS in the Gulf of Mexico. that will remain closed afford adequate ICCAT quota share, contrary to ATCA
Comment 13: Longlining should be ongoing protection for undersized and the Magnuson-Stevens Act; NMFS
banned off the East Coast from June to swordfish and other bycatch. needs to re-examine the area closures
September when white marlin are Response: NMFS closed the East and provide immediate modifications to
present in this area. Florida Coast closed area to PLL gear at least some areas. Other areas may
Response: NMFS currently has several effective in 2001 (August 1, 2000, 65 FR require a period of heightened
closures along the eastern seaboard 47214) in order to reduce bycatch of monitoring to determine the effects of
specifically for pelagic and bottom HMS and other species by PLL gear. new circle hook gear and careful
longline. These consist of the One reason NMFS closed that area was handling/release procedures; NMFS
Northeastern United States closed area, because it is a swordfish nursery area should continuously monitor whether
the existing closed areas are having the long., to 29° N lat., 88°00′ W long. FR 45169). With this monitoring system,
desired effect to determine whether (alternative B3(d)). However, the NMFS has been able to determine if PLL
modifications can occur; NMFS should average swordfish size was significantly vessels are placing sets in closed areas.
reevaluate the PLL gear time/area smaller in the area to be reopened VMS has helped alert enforcement of
closures for their necessity and (average size = 108 cm LJFL) compared illegal activities occurring in closed
effectiveness and redevelop these to the area to remain closed (average areas under real time conditions, which
closures to include prohibiting all HMS size = 116 cm LJFL; P = 0.03). Both has led to prosecution for illegal fishing
hook and line fishing if the biological average swordfish sizes are smaller than in closed areas.
justification warrants retaining any such the minimum size limit of 119 cm LJFL. Comment 16: We support a
closures; NMFS should consider Therefore, NMFS believes that modification of the area described in
modifying the offshore borders of modifying the Desoto Canyon closure alternative B3(a) (modifications to the
existing closures in several areas where could increase swordfish discards. In Charleston Bump closed area). While
the deeper depth contours provide addition, new circle hook management the analysis shows a negligible amount
relatively clean directed fishing; NMFS measures were put into place in 2004, of bycatch, there is an opportunity for
should have considered modifying the and NMFS is still assessing the effects catching marketable species for boats
Desoto Canyon; opening the area of circle hooks on bycatch rates for that are struggling and need access to
offshore of the 250 fathom curve in the HMS. Until NMFS can better evaluate this area; we support a modification of
Desoto Canyon could benefit YFT the effect of circle hooks on bycatch the area described in alternative B3(b)
fishermen; and if NMFS allows vessels reduction, especially with regards to (modifications to the Northeastern U.S.
into closed zones by using Vessel protected species interaction rates, the closed area) because this area should
Monitoring Systems (VMS), then VMS Agency is not modifying the current never have been closed in the first
should also be used to implement and time/area closures. Furthermore, as place; the entire June BFT closure area
enforce additional new closures that described in the response to Comment should be reevaluated in light of all the
follow oceanic bottom contour lines. 14 above, the current time/area closures mandatory bycatch reduction measures
Comments opposed to modifying the were established to reduce bycatch of and the inability to harvest the U.S. BFT
existing HMS closures include: NMFS more than just swordfish. Nonetheless, quota in recent years.
should not rely on old logbook data to if the upcoming ICCAT swordfish stock Response: NMFS analyzed both
modify existing closures; the existing assessment indicates the species is alternatives B3(a) and B3(b). The
closures should not be modified; NMFS rebuilt, NMFS may reconsider analyses indicate that alternative B3(a)
should not consider areas that may modifying the existing closures taking would increase swordfish catch by 1.1
serve as nursery areas for North Atlantic into consideration things such as the percent and yellowfin tuna catch by
0.16 percent. However, it could increase
swordfish; NMFS should not consider impact of circle hooks and protected
the bycatch of sailfish (3.0 percent),
opening the DeSoto Canyon areas to species interaction rates. Finally, while
spearfish (2.4 percent), and white
longlining because this would adversely VMS can provide NMFS with
marlin (2.0 percent). Alternative B3(b)
affect the health of the fisheries information that allows a vessel to
would cause a minimal increase in
ecologically and would prove transit a closed area, closed areas with
bycatch, with only a minimal increase
detrimental to the economic interests of boundaries that track oceanic contour
in retained catch based on 1997 - 1999
the commercial fleet; and, the figures in lines would often be too irregularly
data (i.e., 3 swordfish, 1 BFT, and 1
this section show longline sets after the shaped to be easily enforced despite the
BAYS tuna (numbers of fish)).
2000 closure of the Desoto Canyon and use of VMS. Geometric coordinates
Therefore, NMFS is not implementing
the harvest of BFT dead discards, which greatly aid in enforcement of time/area alternatives B3(a) and B3(b) because
is illegal, so how do individuals make closures. neither alternative would increase
these sets and record them in the The baseline that NMFS has used to retained catches enough to alleviate
logbook? calculate bycatch reduction associated concerns over uncaught portions of the
Response: NMFS considered with current time/area closures is the swordfish and BFT quotas. As described
modifications to the current time/area U.S. Atlantic HMS logbook data just in the response to Comment 2, NMFS is
closures, including modifications to the prior to the implementation of the not implementing any new closures,
DeSoto Canyon, and is continuously closures (1997 - 1999). NMFS feels this except for the Madison-Swanson and
monitoring the effectiveness of the best reflects the status of the stocks at Steamboat Lumps, or modifying any
current closures. As described above in the time of the closures and more existing closures. NMFS may consider
the response to Comments 4 and 5 and current data is not available because changes to the current time/area
elsewhere in this document, an analysis PLL gear has been prohibited in these closures in a future rulemaking
of pre-closure and post-closure data areas since 2000 or 2001, depending on depending upon the results of the circle
indicate that the existing closures have the closure. The figures referred to by hook analyses, the 2006 ICCAT stock
effectively reduced the bycatch of the commenter (Figures 4.3 and 4.8 in assessments (BFT, swordfish, and
protected species and non-target HMS, the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP) billfish), protected species interaction
and provided other positive ecological incorrectly showed all of the 1997 - rates, and the other criteria described in
benefits. The analysis also indicated 1999 reported sets rather than the this final rule.
that none of the modifications would intended 2001 - 2003 reported sets. The
have increased the retained catch figures have been corrected. Very few, if vi. Madison-Swanson/Steamboat Lumps
enough to alleviate concerns about any, sets have been reported in the Comment 17: NMFS received
portions of the swordfish quota Desoto Canyon since 2000. The figures contrasting comments regarding
remaining uncaught. Specifically for the in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP preferred alternative B4 (implement
DeSoto Canyon, NMFS considered only show where BFT discards occurred complementary HMS management
modifying the existing DeSoto Canyon for PLL vessels from 2001 through 2003. measure in Madison-Swanson and
time/area closure boundary to allow NMFS also implemented the use of a Steamboat Lumps Marine Reserves)
PLL gear in areas seaward of the 2000 vessel monitoring system (VMS) for all including: I support preferred
meter contour from 26° N lat., 85°00′ W PLL vessels on September 1, 2003 (68 alternative B4 and the maintenance of
the existing closures; the Agency Response: NMFS used many of the establishing such criteria in open areas
appears to be acting positively on the criteria when establishing the current to the maximum extent possible; and
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management time/area closures. NMFS is there must be overwhelming reason to
Council’s request for complementary implementing the criteria to clarify the pay fishermen to use illegal gear in a
closures; I support this alternative even decision-making process and to inform closed area in the name of research
though this will have virtually no constituents about what NMFS would (while still being able to sell their catch)
significant impact on HMS fisheries consider before implementing new when such studies could just as easily
because the area is so small; I support time/area closures or modifying current be performed in vast areas of the oceans
alternative B4 because it will make time/areas closures. In addition, in this where it is legal to fish in that manner.
enforcement easier; we support rulemaking, NMFS evaluated the Response: NMFS supports research to
alternative B4 with the following edit, impacts of most of the current time/area determine how changes in fishing gear
‘‘Maintain existing time/area closures closures in the No Action alternative, and/or fishing practices can reduce
and implement complementary B1, and the impacts of modifying four bycatch. Research in closed areas to test
November through April (6 months) — current time/area closures. Thus, NMFS how changes in fishing gear and/or
Preferred Alternative’’; and we do not has already re-evaluated some of the fishing practices may reduce bycatch is
support complementary closures with current time/area closures using the particularly important. Due to the
Madison-Swanson and Steamboat criteria. Once the criteria are spatial and temporal variability of HMS
Lumps - the PLL industry has had to implemented, NMFS would continue and the species that HMS interact with,
withstand numerous stringent measures using them in future rulemakings. The the results of experiments in open areas
in recent years and cannot withstand only time/area closure that was not re- may not always be applicable to closed
any additional closures. evaluated during this rulemaking was areas. Oftentimes, these areas are ‘‘hot
Response: NMFS is implementing the mid-Atlantic shark closure off North spots’’ and were closed because they are
alternative B4, complementary HMS Carolina. NMFS did not re-evaluate this areas with high congregations of HMS or
management measures for the Madison- closure because, as described in the other species. These congregations
Swanson and Steamboat Lumps Marine response to a petition for rulemaking usually occur along bathymetric contour
Reserves, at the recommendation of the from the State of North Carolina lines or areas where currents interact. In
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management (October 21, 2005; 70 FR 61286), the order to scientifically test if a certain
Council. These closures were designed closure became effective in January change in the gear would result in a
primarily to protect spawning 2005, and NMFS did not have any significant reduction in bycatch,
aggregations of gag grouper and other additional information on which to scientists may need to work in areas
Gulf reef species. Similar management reevaluate the conclusions of the where there is a high degree of certainty
measures are already in effect for rulemaking that established the closure that the gear will interact with the
holders of southeast regional permits. (December 24, 2003; 68 FR 74746). bycatch species. Testing for bycatch
The complementary HMS management However, when NMFS established the reduction in areas where there is little
measures would close any potential mid-Atlantic shark time/area closure, to no bycatch would likely require more
loopholes by extending the closure the Agency considered the social and monetary resources, fishermen, and
regulations to all other vessels that economic impacts on directed shark time, compared with areas that are
could potentially fish in the areas and/ fishermen, while also balancing considered ‘‘hot spots.’’ Scientists often
or catch gag grouper and other reef fish reductions in the catch of juvenile
conduct preliminary tests in open areas
as bycatch (e.g., HMS bottom longline to ensure that the changes in gear or
sandbar sharks, the bycatch of
vessels). As a result, this action is fishing methods being considered could
prohibited dusky sharks, and the quota
expected to improve the enforcement of work, but they may need access to
throughout the entire large coastal shark
the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat closed areas at some point to make
fishery. As described in this rulemaking
Lumps Marine Reserves. Only minor certain that the expected results are
and in previous rulemakings, the
impacts on HMS fisheries, including the actually realized. Otherwise, NMFS
primary goals of time/area closures are
PLL fishery, are anticipated because the might reopen a previously closed area in
to maximize the reduction of bycatch of
marine reserves are relatively small, and light of technological advances in
non-target and protected species while
little HMS fishing effort has been bycatch reduction but not see the
minimizing the reduction in the catch of
reported in these areas. The suggested expected reduction in bycatch rates, or
edit to the title of this alternative is retained species. NMFS believes that the potentially see an increase in bycatch
appreciated, but is not necessary mid-Atlantic shark closure should rates.
because the existing closures will accomplish these goals even though Comment 20: NMFS received
remain in effect by default, absent there may be negative economic impacts comments regarding the specific criteria
additional action to remove or modify as a result of that closure. Once the that NMFS should consider when
them. results of the ongoing LCS and dusky examining potential area closures
shark stock assessment are finalized, including: the criteria should include
vii. Criteria/Threshold/Baseline NMFS may consider whether changes to the status of the stock in each area
Comment 18: NMFS received several any management measures are under consideration; the criteria should
comments on using the criteria on appropriate regarding LCS, including include bycatch baselines, targets,
current closures including: NMFS dusky sharks, and may reconsider the reduction timetables, and consider
should have created these criteria when mid-Atlantic closed area in a future impacts on all HMS, with an emphasis
establishing the closed area off NC - rulemaking using the criteria being on overfished species; what percent
NMFS then could have modified the implemented in this final rule. reduction in discards is required to
economic impacts to the NC directed Comment 19: NMFS received several implement a time/area closure, and on
shark fishermen by having flexibility to comments regarding research and closed what basis is this threshold determined?
reduce the time and area of the current areas including: NMFS should support What is the threshold that the Agency
closed area; and all existing closed areas additional research to determine where is trying to achieve? There are no
should be immediately re-evaluated in other closed areas should be placed; standards; was a target bycatch
terms of the new criteria. NMFS should collect data for use in reduction level identified; the Agency
should quantitatively use an practicable, the other species and the goal. The existing time/area closures
optimization model to combine areas to rest of the fishery. Without this were not meant to be permanent
achieve the optimum benefit; these flexibility, NMFS might potentially have closures. Rather, each closure was
criteria should be developed in a to implement more restrictive measures implemented with a specific
workshop including managers, to protect one species causing potential management goal(s) in mind. Once
scientists, and stakeholders to ensure cascade effects (e.g., closing one area those goals are met, NMFS may decide
their success; the discussion of how may increase the bycatch of another to modify or remove the time/area
specific criteria would be developed, species, which could result in closing closure. Through the implementation of
reviewed, and authorized is vague; another area, etc.). the criteria, and using the appropriate
overall the criteria seem to restrict This flexible approach also provides analyses, NMFS would be able to
NMFS’ use of discretion in using closed NMFS with the ability to re-examine the modify the current time/area closures in
areas as part of a comprehensive need for existing closures and modify a more timely and transparent manner.
strategy to reduce bycatch and ensure them appropriately based on the No changes were made to existing time/
sustainable ecosystems; and NMFS analyses rather than the attainment of a area closures at this time because such
should preserve the availability of the specific goal (e.g., NMFS would not modifications could potentially result in
greatest range of options to address its have to wait for 30 percent reduction in bycatch of non-target HMS and
fisheries management, protected bycatch to be met; it could open the protected resources, such as sea turtles.
resources, and marine ecosystem closure at 25 percent, depending on the However, once NMFS better
conservation responsibilities. result of reducing bycatch of other understands the effects of circle hooks,
Response: NMFS already considers species or other considerations, as which were implemented fleet-wide in
the status of the stocks when appropriate). The present criteria do not mid–2004, on all species, NMFS may
implementing time/area closures. preclude NMFS from establishing a consider modifying the current time/
Closed areas like the Northeastern decision matrix in the future if it could area closures. Such modifications would
United States closed area, the mid- provide the flexibility necessary to need to be either conservation neutral or
Atlantic shark closed area, and the consider all of the species involved. positive.
Northeast Distant closed area were all This may be more appropriate when Comment 22: Since the East Florida
implemented to address specific NMFS has a longer temporal dataset on Coast, Charleston Bump, and DeSoto
overfished or protected species. The the simultaneous effect of circle hooks Canyon closures went into effect,
other closed areas, which were and the current time/closures. At this bycatch and fishing effort has been
implemented to reduce bycatch in time, NMFS believes that the criteria reduced. Those three closures achieved
general, also considered the status of the contained in the preferred alternative B5 a greater than predicted reduction in
stocks before implementation. would provide the guidance needed, bycatch. NMFS should use the year
Establishing pre-determined consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens before the closures went into effect as a
thresholds or target reduction goals for Act and this FMP, to help NMFS make baseline to determine what the existing
specific species, as requested in this the appropriate decisions regarding the management measures have produced,
comment, is not appropriate because it use of time/area closures in HMS rather than taking additional actions
does not consider the impact on the fisheries. NMFS developed the criteria and expecting the bycatch to
remaining portion of the catch. to help make the overall process of continually diminish. NMFS could
Consideration of the overall catch is implementing and/or modifying current modify closures and allow increases in
critical when implementing a time/area closures more transparent, not bycatch up to the reductions expected
multispecies or ecosystem-based more vague. While NMFS did not hold as a result of the analyses that closed
approach to management. Furthermore, a workshop on these criteria, they were those areas. This would reduce the
while the Magnuson-Stevens Act considered by multiple stakeholders economic impacts on fishermen.
provides NMFS with the authority to during the scoping and public comment Response: NMFS agrees that the
manage all species, NMFS must balance period for this rule and subsequently current closures reduced the bycatch of
the impacts of management measures on refined, as appropriate. most species more than predicted by the
all managed species. National Standard Comment 21: NMFS received many analyses in the rulemaking that
1, which requires NMFS to prevent comments regarding the use of criteria originally closed the areas. NMFS used
overfishing while achieving on a to open or modify closed areas. These data just prior to the implementation of
continuing basis, the optimum yield comments included: criteria are needed these closures (i.e., logbook data from
from each fishery for the United States to allow for modifications of the closed 1997 - 1999) because the Agency felt
fishing industry, clearly applies to all areas; I cannot support the preferred this time series best represented the
species and all fisheries. Similarly, alternative B5, area closure framework status of the stocks at the time the
National Standard 9, which requires alternative, because it could allow closures were implemented. NMFS
NMFS to minimize bycatch and bycatch NMFS to open existing closures; considered modifications to these areas
mortality to the extent practicable, changes to existing closed areas must, at in this rulemaking. However, the
applies to all species and fisheries. By a minimum, be conservation neutral; we current analyses indicated that bycatch
choosing not to implement specific need a mechanism to open or modify of some species, such as marlin and sea
thresholds or a decision matrix, NMFS closed areas; the present closures appear turtles, could increase as a result of
retains the flexibility to balance the to be larger or different from what is those modifications. Given the status of
needs of all the species encountered necessary; to go through the entire marlin and the jeopardy finding on
with the fishery as a whole. If NMFS regulatory process to change or leatherback sea turtles, NMFS believes
must manage a fishery to achieve a eliminate the closures takes too long that increases in the bycatch of those
specific goal (e.g., a jeopardy conclusion and is too costly for both the species are not appropriate.
regarding the PLL fishery and government and the fishery. Additionally, the analyses in this
leatherback sea turtles), this flexibility Response: NMFS already has the rulemaking are based on mostly J-hook
allows NMFS to close certain areas or authority to modify current closed areas data, which are no longer in use in the
take other actions to achieve that goal once NMFS determines that a closed fishery. NMFS will continue to monitor
while also protecting, to the extent area has met its original management the effectiveness of the closures and
may consider modifications in the However, NMFS further analyzed and target species in these analyses
future, particularly as the amount of fleet mobility in the current rulemaking represents the highest possible expected
circle hook data increases. by examining logbook data from 2001 - reduction. This would also represent the
2004 (this included only the first six greatest negative social and economic
viii. Fleet Mobility/Redistribution of
months of 2004 to include only J-hook impact that is anticipated for the
Effort
data) to determine the amount of vessel industry. The other end of the spectrum
Comment 23: NMFS received several movement along the Atlantic coast and assumes that all fishing effort in a
comments regarding the mobility of the into the Gulf of Mexico. The data closed area would be distributed to
fleet. These comments included: I do indicated that vessels moved out of the open areas (i.e., fishermen would
not believe that effort will move to the Gulf of Mexico, and that vessels continue fishing in surrounding open
Atlantic Ocean from the Gulf of Mexico; sometimes fished as far away as the areas, move their businesses closer to
commercial fishermen would rather stay central Atlantic. Similarly, in the open areas, or sell their permits to
home and fish for other species rather Atlantic, some vessels fished in areas far fishermen closer to open areas).
than relocate great distances; longline from their homeports, although Rather than random redistribution,
vessels are tied to communities; given movement from the Atlantic Ocean into the full redistribution model calculates
rising fuel prices, an increase in long the Gulf of Mexico was minimal. resulting catch of target and non-target
distance relocation seems unlikely; Additionally, there were no physical species by multiplying the effort that is
NMFS states that Vietnamese fishermen differences in terms of length or being redistributed due to the closure by
are reluctant to fish outside the Gulf of horsepower between vessels that fished
Mexico and uses this statement to the average CPUE across all remaining
inside or outside the Gulf of Mexico. open areas for each species. This
conduct a separate analysis specific to Thus, NMFS concluded that HMS
the Gulf of Mexico, but NMFS applied amount is then subtracted from the
vessels continue to be highly mobile, are estimated reduction inside the closed
the assumption to the analysis of only capable of fishing in areas distant from
one alternative in the Gulf of Mexico area (for a complete description of the
their homeports, and that the closure methodology used for redistribution of
when it should be applied to all GOM analyses would need to take into
alternatives; how does the 2001 NMFS effort, please see Appendix A of the
account the potential for redistribution Final Consolidated HMS FMP.) This
VMS study support conducting a fleet- of fishing effort, particularly for a
wide analysis when the majority of end of the continuum would be
potentially large closure such as B2(c) in
effort is in or adjacent to the homeport expected to provide the least amount of
the Gulf of Mexico. Based on this
fishing area? bycatch reduction for a given closure,
additional analysis of fleet mobility,
Response: To determine fleet depending on the CPUE of each species
NMFS considered different scenarios of
mobility, NMFS relied on its analyses in all remaining open areas. Oftentimes,
redistribution of effort for alternatives
described in a 2001 report that NMFS this model provides mixed results
B2(a), B2(b), and B2(c). Each scenario
submitted to the U.S. District Court in regarding the ecological, economic, and
made different assumptions regarding
response to a lawsuit filed by the fishing social impacts because HMS and
where effort would redistribute, based
industry against NMFS for protected species are not uniformly
on the current fleet’s movement.
implementing the vessel monitoring However, NMFS recognizes that the distributed throughout the ocean.
system (VMS) requirement. That increased cost of fuel and other supplies Therefore, a closure in one area might
document indicated that fishermen were may limit the amount of movement by reduce the bycatch of one or two
as likely to fish in areas away from their the pelagic longline fleet. species, but may increase the bycatch of
homeport as in areas immediately Comment 24: NMFS received others. Bycatch of a particular species
adjacent to their homeport, even comments regarding the redistribution increases if that species is more
without the added pressure of a closure of fishing effort model used to analyze abundant or more frequently caught
in an area adjacent to their homeport. In the time/area closure alternatives. (i.e., higher CPUE) in areas outside of
addition, NMFS conducted a separate Comments included: Does the model the closed area. For example, the
analysis in the Draft Consolidated HMS assume random distribution to other analyses indicate that a closure in the
FMP for alternative B2(a) that limited fishing grounds?; how does the central Gulf of Mexico could reduce
the redistribution of effort in the Gulf of redistribution of effort model result in BFT and leatherback sea turtle discards
Mexico. This separate analysis was more bycatch?; how does the because CPUE for those species is
conducted because the area in redistribution of effort model work with higher in the Gulf of Mexico than along
alternative B2(a) was the smallest of the circle hooks?; the model is based on the eastern seaboard. However, such a
three closures considered in the Gulf of discard rates, which implies some closure could increase sailfish,
Mexico and, therefore, represented the mortality. spearfish, and large coastal shark
most likely case in which fishermen Response: NMFS considered a broad discards because the CPUE for those
would remain in the Gulf of Mexico. range of time/area closure alternatives species is higher outside of the Gulf of
Because there would still be open areas that estimated potential bycatch with Mexico. In reality, the actual result is
in the Gulf of Mexico during this period and without redistribution of fishing expected to be between the results
(May through November), fishermen effort. Considering the impacts of obtained from these two different
might be more likely to fish in those closures with and without redistribution considerations of redistributed effort. In
areas rather than relocate fishing effort of effort provides NMFS with the addition, NMFS combined dead and
to the Atlantic Ocean. NMFS also potential range of changes in catch that live discards in these analyses, so
recognized that Vietnamese fishermen could occur as a result of the closure(s). mortality is accounted for in terms of
are reluctant to fish outside of the Gulf One end of the range assumes that all discards. Given the number of species
of Mexico, especially for a small time/ fishing effort within a given closed area that NMFS had to consider, there was
area closure. Such limited redistribution would be eliminated (i.e., fishermen no single closure or combination of
of effort was not appropriate for other who fished in the closed area would closures that resulted in a reduction of
closures in the Gulf of Mexico because stop fishing for the duration of the bycatch of all species considered. The
of their larger geographic size and closure). Thus, the number and percent data analyzed in the Draft Consolidated
longer temporal duration. reduction in catch of both non-target HMS FMP (2001 - 2003) and additional
analyses in the Final Consolidated HMS average CPUEs of species in the closure would be somewhere between
FMP (2001 - 2004, including the first six different areas. Using these additional the results of the two scenarios.
months of 2004 only) did not include analyses, NMFS could ask different Comment 27: NMFS needs a
circle hook data. The implementation of questions about the assumptions of the probabilistic model for effort
the circle hook requirement in June existing model (e.g., should all fishing redistribution that considers things such
2004 resulted in a change to the effort from a closed area be distributed as the history of effort.
baseline. NMFS needs to fully analyze to all open areas or redistributed only Response: NMFS is aware of other
the circle hook data to determine the within remaining open areas of the Gulf models that have investigated
extent of bycatch reduction and the of Mexico). redistribution of effort as a result of
effects of post-release mortality resulting Comment 26: The random time/area closures (i.e., random utility
from this new gear requirement. redistribution of effort model weighs models (RUMs) used for the Hawaiian
Comment 25: How is NMFS going to nearby and distant areas equally. This PLL fishery, and a closed area model
address the peer review comments that may artificially emphasize distant areas used by the New England Fishery
found fault with the effort redistribution where bycatch rates are higher, and may Management Council (NEFMC) to
model? result in unlikely assumptions about evaluate closures for the groundfish
Response: Not all of the peer how the effort will shift. This model fishery). These types of models are
reviewers found fault with the suggests that Gulf of Mexico vessels are econometric models, which predict
redistribution of effort analysis. For mobile and might fish as far away as where fishermen will reallocate effort
example, one peer reviewer made the Florida but does not suggest that effort based on maximizing revenues and/or
following comment: is distributed randomly or that profits. These models were not designed
The time area closure model is based on significant effort would be displaced to to be used for the current HMS PLL
generally accepted principles in fisheries
science. In general such models rely on a set the Northeast. To close or not close an fishery, and in order for either
of assumptions related to static patterns of area based on random redistribution of framework to be applicable to a time/
relative abundance at some temporal and effort is not reasonable. We are area analysis for the Atlantic HMS PLL
spatial resolution, limited consideration of concerned about the model given the fishery, NMFS would have to develop a
fish movements, and incomplete fact that the data clearly show where specific model for the PLL fleet based
understanding of the effects of closure areas concentrations of marlin are caught. on the current economics, fishing
on redistribution of fishing effort. grounds, and fishing effort of the
Nonetheless, such models can provide useful
Response: As described above in the
insights for comparisons of alternative response to Comment 24, the method Atlantic HMS PLL fleet. Development of
management strategies. This is the approach used to calculate redistribution of effort such a model would require
taken within this draft EIS. Twelve and the resulting catch of target and considerable additional investment,
combinations of seasonal and spatial closures non-target species is to multiply the time, and effort.
are evaluated in Section 4.1.2. Without such effort that is being redistributed by the At present, NMFS has not developed
a model there would be no pragmatic way of average catch rate (CPUE) for each a probabilistic model that considers the
comparing the proposed closed areas. In species in all remaining open areas, and history of effort or other complicating
general it is probably safe to assume that the
subtract it from the estimated reduction factors (i.e., trip costs, revenues or
limitations of the model will be comparable
across alternatives. Thus the rankings of each inside the closed area (for a complete profits). Prior to developing such a
alternative should be relatively insensitive to description of the methodology used for model, NMFS would need to consider
the assumptions. redistribution of effort, please see the limitations of the Agency, both
However, in response to another peer Appendix A of the Final Consolidated financially and logistically, to build
reviewer’s comment that NMFS test HMS FMP.) In some cases, depending such a model. For example, despite the
assumptions and consider other upon the average CPUE in open areas, fairly straightforward model used in this
plausible alternatives to the random this approach may emphasize distant rulemaking and previous time/area
effort redistribution model, NMFS areas where bycatch rates may be rulemakings to calculate redistribution
evaluated different scenarios that made higher. However, in other cases, low of fishing effort, many commenters
different assumptions regarding where bycatch rates in distant areas would not found the procedure confusing or
effort would be redistributed in the be a factor. For example, a small closure misunderstood the approach and
Final Consolidated HMS FMP, such as B2(a) in the central Gulf of results. This confusion could become
including redistribution of effort in the Mexico might result in fishing effort even worse if a more complicated model
Gulf of Mexico only for closures in the being displaced into areas immediately were used. Some models require
Gulf of Mexico, redistribution of effort adjacent to and surrounding the closed substantial capital investment for the
in the Atlantic only for a closure in the area. NMFS tried to take this into Agency, years to develop, and years of
Atlantic, and redistribution of effort in account by analyzing redistribution of testing before they can be used. While
the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic for effort only in the Gulf of Mexico for the model used continues to be the best
closures in the Gulf of Mexico. These alternative B2(a). For larger closures in available science for the PLL fishery at
scenarios were based on an analysis of the Gulf of Mexico such as alternative present, NMFS is considering different
the movement of fishing effort out of the B2(c), NMFS considered redistribution options to improve the models used to
Gulf and into the Atlantic. In order to of effort in the Gulf of Mexico and analyze the impacts of time/area
perform this last analysis, NMFS Atlantic based on known movement of closures.
examined logbooks from 2001 - 2004 fishing vessels and effort into areas of Comment 28: NMFS has applied the
and tracked the movement of vessels out the Atlantic. Finally, for a closure such redistribution model beyond its
of the Gulf of Mexico into different areas as B2(b) located in the Atlantic, NMFS usefulness because the model does not
of the Atlantic. By examining the considered redistribution of effort in describe where the vessels are likely to
movement of effort between the Gulf of open areas of the Atlantic only. In all go. NMFS places an overemphasis on
Mexico and the Atlantic, NMFS was cases, NMFS considered the results of the dangers of redistribution of effort
able to modify the existing full both no redistribution of effort and the instead of making balanced
redistribution of effort model and apply full redistribution of effort model and recommendations based on both the
different proportions of effort to the assumed that the actual result of the lower and upper estimates of the model.
Response: NMFS disagrees that the than 30 percent since the time/area selling their permits, moving to other
redistribution model has been applied closures went into effect. Additionally, areas, and possibly switching gears to
beyond its usefulness. It is highly as the areas open to fishermen become target other species. However, given the
unlikely that NMFS could develop a more restricted, fishing effort will tend limited access restrictions of permits for
perfect model that accurately predicts to become more and more concentrated other fisheries, NMFS predicts that it
fishing behavior. The redistribution of in smaller and smaller areas where even would be difficult for fishermen to
effort model is useful in providing one low bycatch rates may result in switch to a different gear and different
end of a range of potential outcomes increases in bycatch due to the high fisheries unless they currently possess
resulting from new closures. NMFS does effort levels. Some of the closures other permits. NMFS acknowledges the
not overemphasize the dangers of considered in this rulemaking such as limitations of the redistribution of effort
redistribution of effort, but rather alternatives B2(c) and B2(d) would close model, and has considered and
considers it likely that fishing effort may very large portions of the Gulf of Mexico analyzed other plausible alternatives to
be displaced into open areas and that where approximately 90 percent of the the current redistribution scenario.
there may be some increase in bycatch historic fishing effort in the Gulf has NMFS has considered results from both
as a result. This is not highly occurred. Closing such a large area in the redistribution of effort model and a
speculative, but rather based on the Gulf of Mexico would be no redistribution of effort model since
quantitative assessments of fishing unprecedented, and predicting the the first closure for HMS fishermen was
effort, bycatch rates, and resulting outcome would likewise be difficult. It implemented in 1999. NMFS has
ecological impacts. For instance, fishing should be noted that while the NED consistently taken both scenarios into
effort in the open areas increased in the closure was just as large as some of the account when considering new or
Gulf of Mexico after the implementation closures proposed in this rulemaking, additional closures.
of the existing closures, which suggests the closures proposed in this
ix. Data Concerns
that fishing effort will be displaced to rulemaking are closer to land and more
other areas. Furthermore, NMFS does accessible to vessels. However, NMFS Comment 31: Does the recent article
not believe that fishing effort that disagrees with the comment that vessels in the journal ‘‘Nature’’ regarding BFT
occurred historically within an area would be unlikely to move out of the spawning, which indicated that discards
would be completely eliminated with a Gulf of Mexico in response to such an are being underestimated, affect NMFS
new closure. As stated above, the model unprecedented large closure. The assumptions about the benefits (and
used is the best available science for the analyses indicate that fishermen costs) of the proposed time/area
PLL fishery; however, NMFS will currently homeported in the Gulf of closures? Does NMFS have any data
continue to refine the model to increase Mexico move out of the Gulf of Mexico indicating that bycatch rates are
its usefulness. into the Atlantic even without the significantly lower than those recorded
Comment 29: NMFS received added incentive of a closure. Even in by the scientific observers?
comments regarding effort shifts in the the highly unlikely event that fishermen Response: NMFS is aware that
Gulf of Mexico including: effort shifts did not move out of the Gulf of Mexico discards may be underreported in the
have not occurred in the Gulf of Mexico in response to a closure, the economic HMS logbook data compared to the POP
as predicted for other species; vessels impact could force them to sell their data. However, NMFS examined
may be offloading in different ports but permits to fishermen in the Atlantic, whether any differences in
still in the Gulf of Mexico; and the thereby increasing fishing effort in those underreporting between the logbook and
assumption that vessels would move out areas. The redistribution of effort observer data for different species
of the Gulf of Mexico and catch BFT, analysis in the FMP would take this into emerged between different regions. If
particularly spawning western BFT, is account. underreporting was not different
unlikely. Comment 30: NMFS received many between regions, then the relative effect
Response: While there has been an comments regarding where effort would of each closure on bycatch reduction for
overall decrease in fishing effort since be redistributed including: the model each species should be comparable
implementation of the closures in 2000 fails to consider redistribution of effort across alternatives.
- 2001, NMFS has seen evidence of an from one fishing gear to another (e.g., Cramer (2000) compared dead
increase in effort in the Gulf of Mexico longline to gillnet); the model discards from HMS logbook and
during 2001 - 2004, possibly as a result inappropriately predicts spatially observer data. In her paper, Cramer used
of the East Florida Coast closure heterogeneous increases in regional observer data to estimate dead discards
implemented in 2001, which forced fishing effort and bycatch; NMFS should of undersized swordfish, sailfish, white
fishermen who originally fished in the acknowledge the limitations of the and blue marlin, and pelagic sharks
east coast of Florida into the Gulf of model when selecting the final from the PLL fishery operating in the
Mexico. The difference between alternatives and base predictions about U.S. Atlantic, Caribbean, and Gulf of
closures implemented in 2000 and the redistribution of effort on credible, Mexico. She also provided the ratio of
closures being considered in this FMP is transparent sources and peer-reviewed catch estimated from the observer data
that many of the areas of high bycatch literature or on comparisons to the divided by the reported catch in the
were targeted for closures in 2000 and outcomes of previous time/area HMS logbooks. This ratio indicates the
remain closed today. NMFS is now closures; and NMFS initially argued that amount of underreporting for different
analyzing an additional series of there would not be a displacement of species in a given area. NMFS analyzed
closures that may not produce the same effort if closures were implemented, but these ratios to test whether
tangible results that occurred after the now is arguing the opposite. underreporting varied for different
first round of closures because bycatch Response: While the redistribution of species in different parts of the Atlantic,
has already been reduced substantially effort model does not explicitly take Caribbean, and Gulf of Mexico. NMFS
for many species. Analyses indicate that into account the potential for fishermen found no statistical difference in the
the overall number of reported discards to shift from one gear to another, NMFS ratio of estimated catch versus reported
of swordfish, BFT, bigeye tuna, pelagic has discussed a number of unintended catch for undersized swordfish, pelagic
sharks, blue and white marlin, sailfish, consequences that could result from sharks, sailfish, or white or blue marlin
and spearfish have all declined by more new closures, including fishermen in the Atlantic, Caribbean, or Gulf of
Mexico. Based on the available data should not invalidate or bias the where leatherbacks, loggerheads and
information, NMFS found that the results of the time/area analyses because BFT have been present. NMFS
underreporting in logbooks compared to the level of underreporting did not considered closures in the Gulf of
observer reports was consistent between significantly differ between geographic Mexico for white marlin, blue marlin,
areas. Therefore, NMFS believes that, regions and, thus, between closure sailfish, spearfish, leatherback sea
while HMS logbooks may underestimate alternatives. NMFS will continue to turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, other sea
the amount of bycatch, the use of investigate potential differences in turtles, pelagic and large coastal sharks,
logbook data rather than observer data reporting between HMS logbook and swordfish, BFT, and BAYS tunas.
should not invalidate or bias the results POP data for all discarded species. However, unlike the analyses for the
and that the relative effect of each Comment 33: How did NMFS conduct existing closures, NMFS found that no
closure for each species should be the overlap analysis comparing effects single closure or combination of
comparable across alternatives when of bycatch on BFT, marlin, and sea closures would reduce the bycatch of all
using logbook data. turtles? species considered, and in certain cases
Furthermore, while logbook data Response: NMFS analyzed the resulted in increases of bycatch for some
appear to underreport bycatch, NMFS distribution of white marlin, BFT, species with the consideration of
has logbook data for each set fished and leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles, redistribution of effort. While the
has observer data for only a limited as well as a number of other species Magnuson-Stevens Act provides NMFS
number of sets fished. In order to use from the 2001 - 2003 HMS logbook and the authority to manage all species,
observer data for the analyses, NMFS POP data using GIS. Data for each of the NMFS must balance the mandates of the
would have had to extrapolate the catch species were mapped and compared National Standards when examining
for all species in all the different areas. spatially to one another in order to various closures. For example, National
This extrapolation process would have select the areas of highest concentration Standard 9 requires NMFS to minimize
added another layer of uncertainty to of bycatch. The areas of highest bycatch and bycatch mortality to the
the model and the results. NMFS concentrations of bycatch for all species extent practicable and National
believes that while the overall numbers were then selected for further analysis. Standard 1 requires NMFS to prevent
of bycatch and target catch taken would NMFS provided maps of bycatch for overfishing while achieving on a
have been larger using the observer data, individual species in the Draft continuing basis the optimum yield
the use of observer data would have Consolidated HMS FMP, and has from each fishery for the U.S. fishing
resulted in more uncertainty regarding provided a map showing the overlap of industry. Both of these National
the relative effect of each closure in BFT, white marlin, and sea turtles in the Standards applies to all species and
terms of predicted changes in bycatch, Final Consolidated HMS FMP. NMFS fisheries. If NMFS were to consider only
discards, and retained catch would be combined the bycatch data from the National Standard 9, NMFS could
the same. Use of the raw logbook data, HMS logbook for BFT, white marlin, continue to reduce bycatch of certain
however, would not introduce the same and sea turtles into one combined species until no fishery exists. However,
degree of uncertainty. NMFS will dataset, and then joined them to a 10 x NMFS also needs to balance the needs
continue to investigate potential 10 minute grid (which is equivalent to of National Standard 1 and ensure that
differences in reporting between HMS approximately 100 nm2) to get the each fishery has the opportunity to
logbook and observer data for all number of discards for all species catch optimum yield of fish while
discarded species as well as potential combined per 100 nm2. A color scale is preventing overfishing. NMFS will
biases in reporting between included to show the number of continue to look at additional closures
geographical areas for different species. observations per 100 nm2. The maps and other management measures that
Comment 32: NMFS should use the show the areas of highest bycatch for the reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality
observed sea turtle CPUE by season for three species combined. Monthly and that balance the requirements of all
each region and multiply it by the interactions for the different species the National Standards and other
amount of effort anticipated to return to (i.e., temporal variability) were domestic law, as applicable.
that particular area in order to more considered in the redistribution of effort
accurately assess changes to sea turtle x. Pelagic Longline
analyses.
bycatch. Comment 34: NMFS should consider Comment 36: NMFS received several
Response: NMFS used HMS logbook increasing observer coverage throughout comments regarding alternative B7, the
data for all of the analyses to maintain the longline fleet to document prohibition of PLL gear. These
consistency among the alternatives and unintended bycatch. comments included: we oppose any rule
species. If NMFS had used the POP data Response: NMFS’s target for PLL that would allow the further use or
for all species, NMFS would have had observer coverage is 8 percent. This is experimentation of such gear, and
to calculate extrapolated takes for all the based on the recommendation from the support alternative B7, which would
species considered. This extrapolation National Bycatch Report that found prohibit the use of PLL gear in HMS
would have introduced more coverage of 8 percent would yield fisheries and areas (this alternative
assumptions and uncertainty than using statistical analyses of protected would save the fishery if buoy gear was
HMS logbook data to analyze the resources that would result in also prohibited); NMFS needs to look at
potential impacts of time/area closures. coefficient of variance estimates that data prior to the introduction of PLL
As mentioned in the response to were below 30 percent. gear in relation to the decline of billfish;
Comment 31, NMFS found that HMS Comment 35: Available evidence and this should be about the gear, not
logbooks may underestimate the amount suggests that leatherbacks, loggerheads, the fishermen, because PLL gear is
of bycatch, however, the relative effect and BFT may share similar hot spots in problematic.
of each closure for each species should the Gulf of Mexico, thus closures could Response: NMFS does not prefer
be comparable across alternatives. The be beneficial to all species — despite the alternative B7 at this time because,
analyses conducted for this rulemaking opposite conclusion in the Draft while prohibiting the use of PLL gear
(and described in the response to Consolidated HMS FMP. would eliminate bycatch associated
Comment 31) give some indication that Response: Pelagic logbook data also with that gear, it would also eliminate
the use of HMS logbook data over POP showed areas in the Gulf of Mexico a significant portion of the retained
catch of swordfish and tunas (e.g., in recent hurricanes may have further fishing behavior and the PLL fishing
2004, 97 percent of the swordfish reduced the fleet. industry: (1) stocks may be declining;
landings from the U.S. Atlantic were Response: NMFS evaluated the effect (2) time/area closures may have acted
from longline gear). Elimination of this of current time/area closures on the PLL synergistically with declining stocks to
retained catch would result in fleet in the No Action alternative, B1. produce greater declines in catch than
substantial negative social and While the closures have had a positive predicted; (3) fishermen may have left
economic impacts. Under ATCA, the impact on bycatch, they have also had the fishery; and (4) fishing effort may
United States cannot implement a negative impact on retained species have been displaced into areas with
measures that have the effect of raising landings. For example, from 1997 to lower CPUEs. With regard to the last
or lowering quotas, although NMFS may 2003, the number of retained swordfish point, the redistribution of effort model
change the allocation of that quota declined by nearly 28 percent, the is incapable of making predictions
among different user groups. The number of retained yellowfin tuna based on a declining CPUE. Instead, the
swordfish fishery is confined, by declined by 23.5 percent, and the total model assumes a current CPUE that
regulation, to three gear types: harpoon, number of retained BAYS tunas remains constant in the remaining open
longline, and handlines. Under declined by 25.1 percent. Overall effort areas when estimating reductions.
preferred alternative H5, the commercial in the Atlantic PLL fishery, based on the NMFS also considered modifications to
swordfish fishery would also be reported number of hooks set, declined the existing closures, in alternatives
authorized to use buoy gear. Since it is by 15 percent from the pre-closure B3(a) and B3(b), to provide additional
unlikely that the handgear sector would period to the post-closure period. One opportunities to harvest legal-sized
be able to catch the quota given the size reason for this decline may be that swordfish but not increase bycatch.
distribution of the stock, prohibiting fishermen left the fishery as a result of
NMFS, however, does not prefer any
longline gear may reduce the ability of the time/area closures. In addition,
modifications to the current closures for
U.S. fishermen to harvest the full quota. other factors such as hurricanes and fuel
the reasons discussed in the response to
It may also reduce traditional prices have negatively impacted the PLL
Comment 15. NMFS agrees that all
participation in the swordfish fishery by fishery. This is one reason why NMFS
does not prefer any new time/area sources of fishing mortality should be
U.S. vessels relative to the foreign considered in evaluating new and
competitors because the United States closures, except for Madison-Swanson
and Steamboat Lumps, at this time. existing management measures. For this
would harvest a vastly reduced reason, circle hooks would be required
proportion of the overall quota. Rather, NMFS will continue to estimate
current fishing effort and the potential with natural baits in all billfish
In addition, any ecological benefits tournaments (preferred alternative, E3).
recovery of the PLL fleet, while also
may be lost if ICCAT reallocates U.S. Estimated mortality contributions of the
considering protected species and other
quota to other countries that may not domestic PLL and recreational sectors
takes.
implement comparable bycatch Comment 38: Why is NMFS toward Atlantic white marlin can be
reduction measures as the United States. considering additional closures for the seen in Appendix C of the Consolidated
The PLL fishery has implemented many PLL fishery when analyses indicate that HMS FMP. NMFS will consider
management measures to reduce the original goals of the closures have additional information on post release
bycatch including circle hook been met or exceeded; NMFS does not mortality as it becomes available.
requirements, live bait restrictions in react this way for the BFT fishery
the Gulf of Mexico, prohibition of the Comment 39: NMFS must consider
because it protects spawning or pre- safety. Overly restrictive closed areas
targeted catch of billfish and BFT, time/ adult swordfish, exceeding the ICCAT
area closures, and safe handling and force small vessels to stretch beyond
standards, yet promotes full utilization their offshore capabilities.
release protocols for protected of the BFT angling quota; NMFS must
resources. These restrictions have been realize that the PLL fishery is not always Response: NMFS agrees that safety
successful. Methods that have been the highest contributor to mortality, and concerns should be considered when
employed and designed by U.S. PLL that other fisheries continue to hide developing any new management
fishermen, such as circle hooks and safe behind their lack of data; NMFS should measures, consistent with National
handling and release protocols for show recreational data and analyze Standard 10. After carefully reviewing
protected resources, are being closures for other gears; the issue is the results of all the different time/areas
transferred around the world to reduce fishing mortality, regardless of where it closures analyses, and in consideration
bycatch world-wide. Therefore, this comes from; NMFS must consider all of the many significant factors that have
alternative could ultimately support the forms of fishing mortality including post recently affected the domestic PLL fleet,
fisheries of other countries that do not release mortality from catch and release NMFS, at this time, does not prefer any
implement or research conservation and fishing. new closures, except the
bycatch reduction measures to the same Response: As part of its annual review complementary measures in the
extent that the United States does. As a process, NMFS evaluates the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat
result, alternative B7 could have the effectiveness of existing time/area Lumps Marine Reserves. This decision
unintended effect of increasing the closures. Analysis of the change in effort is based primarily upon the analyses
bycatch of undersized or non-target and bycatch after implementation of indicating that no single closure or
species and protected resources in the existing closures indicates that bycatch combination of closures would reduce
Atlantic Ocean. may have been reduced more than the bycatch of all species considered
Comment 37: NMFS needs to consider predicted with redistribution of effort, (see the response to Comment 39 of this
the adverse economic impact of existing and in some cases, without section). Furthermore, the economic
time/area closures on the commercial redistribution of effort. There are several impacts of each of the alternatives may
longline fishery especially because the possible explanations for the higher be substantial, ranging in losses of up to
PLL fleet has been reduced to than predicted decline in bycatch and several million dollars annually,
approximately 88 vessels due to existing effort resulting from time/area closures depending upon the alternative, and
restrictions; the current high cost of fuel that may have ecological impacts as displacement of a significant number of
is severely impacting the PLL fleet, and well as economic repercussions on fishing vessels.
xi. Bottom Longline FMP in December 2003, and became in all areas that are currently closed to
Comment 40: We support the effective on January 1, 2005. The time/ PLL fishing.
prohibition of bottom longline gear in area closure has now been in place for Response: NMFS used the best
two complete management periods from scientific information available to
the southwest of Key West to protect
January 1 to July 31, 2005, and January analyze the various time/area closure
smalltooth sawfish (alternative B6). This
1 to July 31, 2006. The final 2005 alternatives. Circle hooks were not
alternative can provide a head-start in
logbook data recently became available. required in the PLL fishery until July
reducing sawfish bycatch during the
NMFS is beginning to evaluate the 2004, and all of the data used in the
lengthy process of review and
impacts of the first period of this time/area analyses were based upon J-
implementation of the Smalltooth
closure. NMFS is considering additional hook data. The evaluation of the effects
Sawfish Recovery Plan (SSRP). NMFS
new information, such as the results of of circle hooks is discussed in the
should coordinate closely with the
LCS stock assessment and the dusky response to Comment 2 above. An
Panama City Laboratory and Mote
shark stock assessments, to determine important component of the rationale
Marine Laboratory to ensure full supporting the Agency’s decision not to
funding of their proposed research into whether changes to the time/area
closure, and all shark management prefer new time/area closures
sawfish critical habitat and act promptly (notwithstanding Madison-Swanson and
on their recommendations regarding measures in general, are appropriate. As
a result of the new stock assessments, Steamboat Lumps) is based upon
additional time/area closures for the absence of information regarding the
species. long-term changes to the time/area
closure will be considered in an effects of circle hooks on bycatch rates
Response: The alternative to close an in the PLL fishery.
area off of Key West relied upon a upcoming amendment to the FMP.
However, given the large overharvest in Similarly, there is an absence of
limited amount of Commercial Shark information to analyze the effects of a
Fishery Observer Program (CSFOP) data, the South Atlantic region in the first
trimester of 2006, NMFS is considering ban on all J-hooks and live bait fishing
thus making it difficult to determine in areas that are currently closed to PLL
whether the area being considered short-term changes to the mid-Atlantic
shark closure in 2007. NMFS also fishing. Some available studies
would result in overall reduction in document the effects of circle hooks on
interactions, or whether sawfish exhibit continues to monitor changes to shark
regulations by coastal states and to work certain species (i.e., white marlin), and
a higher degree of mobility, and are as NMFS prefers specific, targeted hook
likely to be caught in other areas. Recent with the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to requirements to reduce bycatch
information indicates that additional mortality in these fisheries. However,
sawfish interactions have occurred develop an interstate shark plan, which
may warrant additional review of the effect of circle hooks on other HMS
outside the proposed area, thus species (i.e., swordfish and sharks) and
necessitating further review of the most existing Federal regulations and
consideration of further changes to the fisheries is largely unknown. As
appropriate location for a potential additional information becomes
closure. In addition, the Smalltooth time/area closure.
available, NMFS will assess the need to
Sawfish Recovery team is currently in NMFS considered redistribution of
require circle hooks, or to prohibit live
the process of identifying sawfish fishing effort for the time/area closure
bait, in other HMS fisheries in areas that
critical habitat, which may be helpful in off North Carolina in Amendment 1.
are closed to PLL fishing.
determining an appropriate closure area The redistribution of fishing effort
in the future. NMFS supports this and analysis indicated that, despite an xiii. General Time/Area Comments
other efforts to further delineate critical increase in fishing effort outside the Comment 43: NMFS chose to combine
habitat for this endangered species. time/area closure, the closure would some of the closures in the analyses.
Comment 41: NMFS received several reduce the overall catch of juvenile How were those areas chosen?
comments regarding the bottom longline sandbar and dusky sharks. The analysis Response: NMFS analyzed the
closed area off North Carolina showed that the number of juvenile combination of areas that had the
including: NMFS should sandbar and prohibited dusky sharks highest bycatch of certain species in the
comprehensively examine and assess outside the time/area closure was low Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic to
the effectiveness of closures and have compared to the number being caught maximize potential bycatch reduction,
the confidence that alterations would inside the time/area closure. and to take into account high bycatch
not reduce protection for dusky and xii. Hook Types for the same species in different areas as
sandbar sharks; I recommend removing described in response to Comment 33.
the NC BLL closure and re-analyzing the Comment 42: NMFS received several For example, there is high bycatch for
impacts in the same manner as was comments regarding hook types and BFT in both the Gulf of Mexico and in
done for this document. Displacement time/area closures, including: the time/ areas of the Northeast. By combining
was not considered for that closure; and area closure analyses are based on J- these two areas, NMFS took into
NMFS should change the NC closed hook data, which the Agency has account the fact that, if effort were
area to only be closed out to 15 fathoms admitted is obsolete; the time/area redistributed, it would not be
maximum depth, and change the time to closure analyses do not take into redistributed into the areas of highest
begin on April 1 and continue until July account new CPUE or PRM rates based bycatch in a different geographic region.
31 of each year. These changes protect on circle hooks; the impact of the area Comment 44: What is the new process
juvenile sandbar sharks, keep closures will be larger than predicted for establishing and/or modifying
protections in place for the peak because the PLL industry is already closures?
‘‘pupping season,’’ and balance the using circle hooks; all of NMFS analyses Response: NMFS is not implementing
needs of the directed shark fishermen are based on J-hook data and a much a new process for establishing or
whose economic livelihood has been larger fleet. Bycatch and bycatch modifying HMS time/area closures.
hurt by the Amendment 1 measures. mortality will be further reduced due to Rather, the Agency is identifying
Response: The bottom longline closed the exclusive use of circle hooks in the specific criteria to consider for
area off North Carolina was PLL fishery; NMFS should consider regulatory framework adjustments that
implemented in Amendment 1 to the banning all J-hooks and live bait fishing could implement new time/area
closures or modify existing time/area adverse social and economic impacts on Response: NMFS agrees that species
closures in the future. NMFS has always fishing communities and fisheries, identification can be problematic,
considered these criteria, or while remaining consistent with the especially the identification of large
combinations of them, in establishing or other FMP objectives. In selecting the coastal sharks at the dealer level.
modifying time/area closures. The preferred time/area closure alternatives, However, NMFS can evaluate the
preferred alternative, however, will NMFS has accomplished these potential impacts of the various time/
provide for greater transparency and objectives. area closures because large coastal
predictability in the decision making In this rulemaking, NMFS does not sharks were combined into a single
process by clarifying what the Agency is prefer any new closures, except for group for the analyses. Identification of
looking for, or considering, during its complementary measures in the other species that achieve legal
analyses. The same criteria will be used Madison-Swanson and Steamboat minimum sizes may be less problematic.
both to establish new closures and to Lumps Marine Reserves. This decision Nevertheless, NMFS has used the best
modify existing closures. The preferred is based primarily upon the analyses available scientific data to evaluate
alternative to establish these criteria described in the Final Consolidated potential impacts of time/area closures.
will not affect the ability of the public HMS FMP indicating that no single Comment 47: NMFS must consider
to submit a petition to NMFS for closure or combination of closures the turtle take and gear removal data
rulemaking if they believe that an would reduce the bycatch of all species from the first two years of the pelagic
existing time/area closure should be considered, when considering longline fishery’s three-year ITS.
modified or a new time/area closure redistribution of effort (see response to Pursuant to the BiOp, annual take
should be established. Comment 39 of this section). estimates based on POP and effort data
Comment 45: The proposed time/area Furthermore, the economic impacts are required to be completed by March
closure alternatives do not achieve the associated with each of the new closure 15th of each year. Additionally, NMFS
conservation objectives of the FMP. alternatives could be substantial, should take this opportunity to provide
Response: There are many objectives ranging in losses of up to several million a framework to take corrective actions as
in the Consolidated HMS FMP. All of dollars annually, depending upon the recommended by the BiOp.
these objectives must be balanced and alternative, which would result in the Response: NMFS agrees that changes
considered in their entirety, within the displacement of a significant number of may have occurred in the PLL fishery
context of the Magnuson-Stevens Act fishing vessels. Even when the time/area since implementation of the circle hook
and other domestic laws, when closure alternatives were combined in requirement and safe handling and
implementing management measures. an attempt to maximize bycatch release guidelines in July 2004. NMFS
Some of the objectives in the FMP are reduction, the ecological benefits were currently only has finalized logbook
especially relevant to this particular minimal at best, with increases in data on the catch associated with circle
comment. The first objective is to discards of some species. NMFS hooks from July through December of
prevent or end overfishing of Atlantic considered a number of closures based 2004. 2005 was the first full year under
tunas, swordfish, billfish and sharks and upon analyses with and without the these requirements. The final 2005 HMS
adopt the precautionary approach to redistribution of fishing effort. The logbook data became available in
fishery management. The second Agency believes it is important to August 2006. NMFS will begin to
objective is to rebuild overfished consider the redistribution of fishing analyze that data soon. Because circle
Atlantic HMS stocks and monitor and effort because HMS and protected hooks likely have a significantly
control all components of fishing species are not uniformly distributed different catch rate than J-hooks, further
mortality, both directed and incidental, throughout the ocean. Fishing vessels, investigation is required to determine
so as to ensure the long-term which are mobile, can move from one the potential impacts of time/area
sustainability of the stocks and promote location to another, if necessary, when closures. The Agency will continue to
Atlantic-wide stock recovery to the level a closure is implemented. Therefore, a monitor and analyze the effect of circle
where MSY can be supported on a closure in one area might reduce the hooks on catch rates and bycatch
continuing basis. The third objective is bycatch of one or two species, but may reduction, as well as assess the
to minimize, to the extent practicable, increase the bycatch of others. NMFS cumulative effect of the current time/
bycatch of living marine resources and additionally considered alternative area closures and circle hooks. NMFS
the mortality of such bycatch that approaches to effort redistribution for has also completed its annual take
cannot be avoided in the fisheries for closures to protect BFT in spawning estimates of sea turtles for both 2004
Atlantic HMS or other species, as well areas in the Gulf of Mexico. Even when and 2005. These estimates indicate that
as release mortality in the directed using this revised approach, which is both loggerhead and leatherback
billfish fishery. Finally, another described more fully in the Final interactions have decreased
objective that is relevant to this Consolidated HMS FMP, closures in the substantially. During 2005, the first full
comment indicates that NMFS should Gulf of Mexico increase the bycatch of year under the circle hook requirement,
minimize, to the extent practicable, some of the species being considered. a total of 282 loggerhead and 368
adverse social and economic impacts on Based upon these results, and in leatherback sea turtles were estimated to
fishing communities and recreational consideration of other recent significant have been taken. This represents
and commercial activities during the developments in the PLL fishery decreases of 64.8 and 65.8 percent
transition from overfished fisheries to (mandatory circle hooks, rising fuel compared to the annual mean for 2000
healthy ones, consistent with ensuring costs, devastating hurricanes, etc.), new - 2003 for loggerheads and leatherbacks,
the achievement of the other objectives time/area closures are not appropriate at respectively. With regard to the
of this plan and with all applicable this time. This decision is fully framework mechanism recommended
laws. These objectives clearly indicate consistent with the objectives of the by the BiOp, NMFS has requested
that the biological impacts on all HMS Consolidated HMS FMP and all other comment on this mechanism and other
species must be considered, as well as applicable law. ways to reduce unanticipated increases
the bycatch of all other living marine Comment 46: If species identification in sea turtle takes by the PLL fishery
resources. In addition, NMFS must is questionable how can the impacts of (August 12, 2004; 69 FR 49858). NMFS
minimize, to the extent practicable, closures be analyzed? is considering the comments received
and notes that the preferred alternative length now, and perhaps enact a Comment 4: NMFS received a number
to establish criteria is a step towards seasonal catch limit as well. of comments regarding the data that is
allowing for more proactive measures. Response: As noted by the SCRS in used to determine the U.S. catch and
2003, trends for CPUE of albacore are status of Atlantic albacore, including:
Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing stable and possibly increasing for the We are concerned about the use of
A. Northern Albacore Tuna PLL fleet; however, in the absence of survey data for the for-hire sectors of
more recent stock assessment data, the this fishery. A study by Loftus and
Comment 1: NMFS received
Agency believes that no action, or Stone showed that the LPS data
comments opposed to alternative C2,
moving forward with a unilateral significantly underestimated
unilateral reduction in albacore fishing
reduction in U.S. fishing mortality are recreational catches of northern albacore
mortality, which indicated such
not consistent with ATCA and are tuna, which supports the need for
restrictions would only create
therefore not selected. In alternative C2, increased recreational data collection;
unnecessary waste and discards.
NMFS considered the ecological, social there is a directed fishery for longfin
Commenters remarked that the United
and economic impacts of unilateral tuna that catches albacore; this fishery
States only weakens its negotiating
action. Restrictions that affect U.S. is not important to the GOM but it could
position by taking unilateral steps prior fishermen solely, including the affect other GOM fisheries. It is
to ICCAT action. Prohibiting retention implementation of bag and size limits, important to get the data straightened
of albacore by all U.S. vessels would or catch limits, are not expected to out now rather than after the fact; and,
have negligible conservation effects. significantly benefit the Atlantic we need better recreational data. The
Some commenters stated that the United albacore stocks as a whole, as U.S.
draft FMP did not pay adequate
States should take action ahead of albacore landings account for less than attention to data issues, including
ICCAT and not negotiate our position. 2 percent of the international landings. looking at a census approach rather than
Response: NMFS recognizes the costs NMFS prefers to work with ICCAT to
sampling. We need to work with ACCSP
associated with imposing restrictions on develop an international rebuilding plan
to create census data with good quality
albacore tuna landings for U.S. fisheries, for albacore. No immediate restrictions
control.
and at the present time believes that the will be imposed on fisheries in the Gulf Response: Adequate data collection is
costs are greater than potential or elsewhere as NMFS develops the an ongoing concern for the successful
ecological benefits for the northern appropriate foundation for such a plan management of Highly Migratory
albacore stock as a whole. Restrictions as described in alternative C3. Upon Species. NMFS funds the Large Pelagic
that affect U.S. fishermen solely are not adoption of an ICCAT rebuilding plan, Survey (LPS) which is a sampling based
expected to be of significant ecological domestic management would be catch data collection program for HMS
value to the Atlantic albacore stocks as developed in separate rulemaking and species. In two states, MD and NC,
a whole, as U.S. albacore landings Gulf regulations options may be catch-card and tail-wrap tagging
account for less than 2 percent of the considered at that time, as appropriate. programs are part of the LPS, which is
international landings. Furthermore, Comment 3: NMFS received support using the census approach to catch data
albacore stock assessment data has been for establishing a foundation at ICCAT collection. NMFS is working with
updated but not re-evaluated since for developing an international managers to collect data for all HMS
2000. The next assessment is currently rebuilding program for northern species, including Atlantic albacore,
scheduled for 2007. It would not be albacore tuna. These comments include: through the ACCSP program. In
consistent with ATCA to impose fishing The management approach for Northern addition, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery
restrictions on this stock in the absence Albacore is favorable and NMFS should Management Council has asked the Gulf
of current data supporting such an apply this approach to many other States Marine Fisheries Commission to
action. The Agency therefore selects domestic fisheries; and we support look into statistical and census-based
alternative C3, which allows the United alternative C3, which will actively data collection programs for HMS in the
States to build a foundation with ICCAT encourage ICCAT to develop and Gulf of Mexico.
to develop a comprehensive implement an international rebuilding Comment 5: NMFS received
management plan for albacore. plan for albacore tuna. While we comments asking to explain what
Comment 2: NMFS received support an albacore-rebuilding plan, we ‘‘establish the foundation with ICCAT ‘‘
comments in opposition to selected do not believe that the United States means in terms of a specific plan. One
alternative C3, which would establish a should implement reductions on its commenter suggested that the plan
foundation at ICCAT for the albacore fishermen. For meaningful and needs to be fully developed and
development of an international effective rebuilding of albacore to take explained in the proposed FMP.
northern albacore tuna rebuilding place, U.S. managers must be willing to Response: If the stock is determined
program. These comments include: put significant pressure on countries to be overfished during the 2007
‘‘The Gulf of Mexico Fishery with high fishing mortalities; and, EU assessment, the United States will work
Management Council is concerned that countries have felt compelled to ban with ICCAT to develop a comprehensive
regulations to rebuild the northern gillnets in this fishery. international rebuilding plan that would
albacore could impact other Gulf Response: To effectively ensure that be adopted by ICCAT, and that would
fisheries and recommends that no action international efforts are taken to regulate comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
be taken in the Gulf as part of the United albacore fishing mortality and provide Implementation of the selected
States foundation for the ICCAT for a sustainable fishery, the Agency alternative will include a thorough
rebuilding program, since there is not a plans to work with ICCAT to develop a analysis of the ICCAT rebuilding
substantial albacore catch in the Gulf’’; rebuilding program for this species. As program to ensure that it includes a
I am leery about any regulations relating current international catch rates exceed specified recovery period, biomass
to albacore since albacore is an the levels needed to produce MSY, targets, fishing mortality rate limits, and
important fishery in Aug-Sept off Long NMFS believes that international explicit interim milestones expressed in
Island; NMFS should set a bag limit of cooperation is essential to rebuild the terms of measurable improvement of the
three albacore per person and a stock and thereby provide long-term stock. Each of these components is
minimum size of 27 inches curved fork positive ecological impacts. necessary to support the objectives of
this FMP and the intent of the closing the small coastal shark fishery Fishermen are not able to target
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The goal of this during that season for gillnetters, or finetooth sharks when fishing with
alternative is for ICCAT to adopt an having shark fishermen move offshore gillnets because it is a non-selective
Atlantic-wide TAC for northern albacore into deeper waters away from where gear. Therefore, any management
tuna, along with other conservation and finetooth sharks are typically found; measures solely directed at fishermen
management measures, to rebuild the fishing on these schools during pupping using gillnet gear and in possession of
stock. Upon adoption by ICCAT, season may have significant biological a commercial shark permit could be
domestic management and conservation implications; and, the seasonality of circumvented, as fishermen could
measures for the United States would be finetooth shark pupping should be continue to use gillnets as an authorized
developed in a separate rulemaking. investigated to determine whether some gear for Spanish mackerel or in other
Comment 6: One commenter asked finetooth shark bycatch is more fisheries pursuing currently unregulated
how the 607 mt quota is to be divided biologically significant than others. species. Furthermore, closures may
between the commercial and Response: Seasonal closures of result in increased fishing effort in other
recreational fisheries. commercial gillnet fisheries landing areas or seasons, which could increase
Response: Currently, the United finetooth shark were not analyzed as dead discards of finetooth sharks.
States does not have domestic quota for part of alternative D2 (implement Comment 2: NMFS received several
recreational albacore catches, nor are commercial management measures to comments in support of the preferred
there restrictions on the number of prevent overfishing of finetooth sharks), alternative for finetooth shark
albacore that may be landed by however, these closures may be management, including: identifying
commercial vessels issued an Atlantic considered in the future, as necessary, sources of finetooth shark fishing
tunas permit. Allocation of the quota to reduce fishing mortality. Closing the mortality to target appropriate
between commercial and recreational small coastal shark fishery will not management actions is appropriate; the
fisheries has not been of concern during prevent dead discards, or account for occurrence of overfishing is a function
recent years as the U.S. harvest has been finetooth that are landed in other of data deficiency; I agree with the
below the quota allocated by ICCAT. fisheries such as the Spanish mackerel preferred alternative; we need
During the last eight years (1997 to fishery. In the Final Consolidated HMS clarification about the landings
2004), an average of 161.4 mt and 311.4 FMP, trips that landed finetooth sharks information in the SCS assessment; I
mt of northern albacore were caught on between 1999 - 2004, according to the support the preferred alternative and the
longlines and rod and reel, respectively. Coastal Fisheries Logbook data, were stock assessment; I applaud NMFS for
Comment 7: NMFS received a analyzed by gear and month. These data taking the approach with the level of
comment that a lot of albacore tuna are indicate that the number of trips landing uncertainty; NMFS scientists cautioned
seen off New York. The commenter finetooth sharks increases in October the reader about conclusions made for
wanted to know how it is that NMFS and November. This could be attributed finetooth and blacknose shark; ASMFC
can conclude they are overfished. to finetooth sharks moving in schools is trying to address these issues; we
Response: During the last 20 years, southward from the Carolinas to warmer need to know which fishery is catching
the spawning stock biomass of albacore waters off Florida in these months these fish; I know that under the law we
has declined significantly, according to leading to an increase in finetooth are supposed to reduce mortality, but I
the SCRS. The most recent SCRS stock landings. Furthermore, there is an think that we need more information;
assessment (reviewed in 2004, using expansion of fishing effort targeting we support alternative D4 because it is
catch at age data from 2003 to update Spanish mackerel as these fish are also critical to improve the assessment for
the 2000 assessment) for albacore, moving south to Florida in October and finetooth sharks in 2007; NMFS should
indicates that the spawning stock November each year, which might also wait on the updated assessment results
biomass is 30 percent below maximum lead to increased landings during this for finetooth sharks before attempting a
sustainable yield. A new assessment is period. quota reduction on the commercial
anticipated in 2007. According to the Commercial shark gillnet fishermen shark fishermen; the March 2002 SCS
Magnuson-Stevens Act, a stock is are already subject to stringent assessment did not have bycatch
overfished if the level of fishing regulations during October and estimates to include with the short catch
mortality is greater than the capacity of November including: prohibitions on and catch per unit of effort (CPUE)
that fishery to produce the maximum fishing in state waters of FL, GA, and SC series, as well as no catch for finetooth
sustainable yield on a continuing basis. with gillnets longer than 100 ft.; the and blacknose sharks, which may have
The presence of fish therefore, does not directed shark gillnet fishery in Federal affected the results; if the majority of
necessarily mean that a stock is not waters is subject to 100 percent observer mortality occurs in non-HMS fisheries,
overfished. However, NMFS recognizes coverage and the use of VMS in the why should HMS fishermen have to
the seasonal nature of the albacore vicinity of the Southeast U.S. Restricted solve the problem; and if there is little
fisheries and will take this into account Area for north Atlantic right whales connection to HMS, and if we want to
in developing management measures as between Savannah, GA and Sebastian get to fishing mortality, we need to
needed. Inlet, FL; and, all gillnet fishermen are collect information.
prevented from deploying shark gillnets Response: NMFS agrees that
B. Finetooth Sharks (stretched mesh >5 in.) in the Southeast implementing a plan for preventing
Comment 1: NMFS received several U.S. Restricted Area between November overfishing of finetooth sharks is
comments in support of seasonal 15 and March 31 every year. Since most necessary, and that appropriate
commercial gillnet fishing restrictions to states in the region have already banned measures are included in selected
reduce finetooth shark fishing mortality, gillnet gear, and because most of the alternative D4 (identify sources of
including one from the South Atlantic fishing pressure on finetooth sharks finetooth shark fishing mortality to
Fishery Management Council. These occurs after they have already given target appropriate management actions).
comments included: If seasons of high birth to their pups in the spring and The majority of finetooth sharks are
finetooth shark landings can be summer in coastal waters (6.5 - 23 ft landed in the South Atlantic region
identified from the observer program, water depth), seasonal closure during (primarily Florida) by vessels deploying
landings, or other data, then we suggest pupping season may not be warranted. non-selective gillnet gear and in
possession of both a Spanish mackerel Fmsy, indicating that recent levels of they should be more than willing to
permit and a commercial shark permit, effort directed at this species, if provide information; NMFS has made
and/or targeting species that are continued, could result in an overfished some steps forward in collecting more
currently unmanaged (i.e., kingfish). status in the relatively near future. information, however, NMFS must work
Thus, any management measures that NMFS continues to explore which harder to get more data; and, NMFS
are solely directed at fishermen using vessels may be engaged in fisheries that needs to develop and pursue specific
gillnet gear and in possession of a harvest finetooth sharks and intends to management measures to end finetooth
commercial shark permit could be conduct a new SCS stock assessment shark overfishing.
circumvented by fishermen, as they following the Southeast Assessment, Response: The selected alternative
could continue using gillnets as an Data, and Review (SEDAR) process (identify sources of finetooth shark
authorized gear while pursuing Spanish starting in 2007. The selected fishing mortality to target appropriate
mackerel or other currently unregulated alternative, which will identify sources management actions) will implement an
species. Reducing finetooth shark of finetooth mortality to target effective plan to prevent overfishing.
fishing mortality through regulations appropriate management measures, is Based on the best available information
directed at commercial shark permit expected to increase the amount of on the fisheries that interact with
holders is further confounded because available catch series and bycatch data finetooth sharks, management actions
finetooth sharks are within the SCS by expanding existing observer that affect only HMS fisheries will not
complex, which is not currently programs and contacting state and adequately address the overfishing of
overfished or experiencing overfishing, Federal fisheries management entities to finetooth sharks. The majority of
and because commercial fishermen have collect additional landings data, which finetooth shark landings occur in
only caught, on average, 20 percent of may be available for the upcoming stock commercial fisheries deploying a non-
the SCS quota between 1999 - 2004. assessment. The selected alternative is a selective gear (gillnets) in a region
Finetooth sharks have a tendency to critical component, and a necessary (south Atlantic) where other non-HMS
‘‘roll’’ upon contact with gillnets and step, in NMFS’s plan to end overfishing fisheries also deploy gillnets. Thus,
are, therefore, often dead at haulback. of this species to comport with National measures that prohibit the use of
Observer data from the five vessels Standard 1 requirements. gillnets for landing sharks (alternative
targeting sharks indicate that they are ASMFC is in the initial steps of D2, implement commercial management
only responsible for a small portion of developing an interstate FMP for coastal measures to reduce fishing mortality of
the commercial finetooth shark sharks. ASMFC staff has drafted a finetooth sharks), if aimed exclusively at
landings. Most of the gillnet vessels in Public Information Document (PID), the commercial shark gillnet fishery,
the South Atlantic region have permits equivalent to a Scoping Document will not prevent overfishing of finetooth
for both HMS and non-HMS species. If drafted prior to initiating a fishery sharks. Most of the five vessels that
gillnets were no longer an authorized management plan. The PID is currently comprise the commercial shark gillnet
gear for harvesting HMS, vessels will available online at www.asmfc.org. fishery also possess Spanish mackerel
continue to discard dead finetooth Comment 3: NMFS received several permits. If gillnets were not allowed for
sharks that are caught as bycatch in comments either opposing the selected the harvest of sharks, these vessels
other non-HMS fisheries. Furthermore, a alternative (identify sources of finetooth could continue to deploy gillnets to
fishery closure could lead to adverse shark fishing mortality to target catch other species, including Spanish
economic impacts and unknown appropriate management actions), or mackerel, catch finetooth sharks
ecological impacts as this displaced expressing concern over the fact that incidentally, and then discard dead
fishing effort will likely shift to other more progress has not already been finetooth sharks. Finetooth sharks are
fisheries or increase fishing pressure on made to prevent overfishing of finetooth caught in a wide range of gillnet mesh
LCS using bottom longline gear. sharks, including: NMFS determined sizes and are often dead at haulback,
Recreational landings of finetooth that finetooth sharks were subject to rendering trip limits and/or gear
sharks only comprise 10 percent of overfishing three years ago and the modifications ineffective at preventing
annual finetooth shark landings, on current preferred alternative simply overfishing because dead sharks would
average. These recreational landings of collects more data on sources of continue to be discarded. Mortality of
finetooth sharks translate to mortality for the species; it has already finetooth sharks in fisheries outside the
approximately 1.5 percent of the taken three or more years to amend this jurisdiction of HMS (state waters) or in
landings within the SCS complex. plan; NMFS should reconsider unregulated fisheries in Federal waters
In 2002, NMFS conducted a stock proposing more specific management (i.e., kingfish) would also be unaffected.
assessment for all SCS, including measures in this Draft Consolidated The selected alternative will provide
finetooth sharks. The catch rate series HMS FMP to conserve finetooth sharks; additional information on finetooth
data were combined with life history we have a species that is in trouble, and shark landings to allow enactment of
information for finetooth sharks and under the law, you need to do comprehensive, collaborative measures
evaluated using several stock something; we are disappointed that that effectively reduce finetooth shark
assessment models. The lack of bycatch you are picking an alternative that will fishing mortality.
data in the catch series data led to low not do anything for the mortality; you The selected alternative will not
values of MSY predicted for finetooth need to change the preferred alternative simply collect more data. NMFS has
sharks in the SCS stock assessment to something more conservation- already sent a letter to the South
(especially those obtained through the oriented; NMFS has not done anything Atlantic Fishery Management Council
SPM models). This lack of bycatch data in the past 4 years and finetooth has and attended a recent meeting in
and shorter catch and catch per unit overfishing occurring; we support Coconut Grove, FL (June 13–15, 2006) to
effort (CPUE) series, coupled with no alternative D4, but note our request consideration of joint
catches reported in some years, led to disappointment that NMFS has not management initiatives. Without
some uncertainty in the stock already directed the appropriate cooperative measures, vessels may be
assessment for finetooth sharks. In the Regional Council to take action to end able to circumvent any additional
case of finetooth sharks, model the overfishing of finetooth sharks; regulations that would be enacted for
estimates of recent F levels are above NMFS should contact states directly as the commercial shark fishery when
pursuing Spanish mackerel. The Agency reduce finetooth shark mortality; in the Because no gillnet closures were fully
has obtained, and will continue to absence of removing gillnets from the analyzed in the Draft Consolidated HMS
evaluate, landings of finetooth sharks by authorized HMS gear list, there should FMP, the requirement to use VMS on
non-HMS fisheries in state and Federal be a requirement for year-round use of gillnet vessels year-round was not
waters. Furthermore, the Agency has VMS on gillnet boats; drift gillnets considered as an alternative in this
analyzed Federal logbook data to better should be prohibited; the State of rulemaking. The existing requirement
understand what non-HMS fishermen Georgia supports the prohibition of was originally implemented in 2003 by
are catching when they land finetooth gillnet gear to target finetooth sharks to Amendment 1 to the FMP for Atlantic
sharks, has determined seasonality of prevent overfishing; and, I suggest that Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, and
landings by federally permitted this fishery be banned in the South requires that all vessels with gillnet gear
fishermen, has analyzed the Federal Atlantic and GOM until we determine onboard and a commercial shark permit
permits of vessels that land finetooth the status of finetooth sharks and get have a functioning VMS unit onboard
sharks, and has analyzed the Florida things straight with the Right whale calf and that the unit is operational during
trip ticket data to better understand the that was caught with gillnet gear. all fishing activities, including
seasonality, extent of landings, and Response: NMFS considered the transiting, between November 15 and
what permits vessels possess that are prohibition of gillnet gear within March 31 each year. This requirement
landing finetooth sharks in the State of Alternative D2 (implement commercial applies to all areas between November
Florida. The Agency has expanded the management measures to reduce fishing 15–March 31 and not just in the vicinity
directed shark gillnet fishery observer mortality of finetooth sharks). A similar of the Southeastern U.S. Restricted
program to include observer coverage on alternative was also considered in Area. If additional time and area
vessels using alternative types of gillnet Amendment 1 to the Fishery closures were implemented outside of
gear (sinknet) or targeting non-HMS Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, the right whale calving season, it may be
species to determine the extent of Swordfish, and Sharks. NMFS agrees prudent to reevaluate the need for a
finetooth shark landings in these that banning the use of gillnets for the year-round VMS requirement for all
fisheries and added finetooth sharks to five vessels that comprise the directed shark drift gillnet vessels.
the select species list for bycatch sub- shark drift gillnet fishery may reduce The Atlantic Large Whale Take
sampling in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishing mortality of finetooth sharks. Reduction Team (ALWTRT) met in St.
trawl fishery to monitor bycatch of However, other gillnet fisheries in the Augustine, FL, on April 10–11, 2006, to
finetooth sharks in this fishery. These South Atlantic that target non-HMS determine what course of action should
activities will form the basis for (Spanish mackerel and kingfish) would be taken to prevent future interactions
implementing appropriate management continue to catch finetooth sharks, and between right whales and gillnet gear.
measures to ensure that overfishing of other species of sharks. Observer data The ALWTRT did not reach consensus
finetooth sharks is prevented. indicate that the five vessels targeting on all the management measures that
Comment 4: There should be a cap on sharks in the South Atlantic region are were being considered at the meeting
the number of vessels allowed into the only responsible for a small portion of and are still deliberating on how to
directed shark gillnet fishery and a the commercial finetooth shark address the co-existence of gillnet
limited entry program that only allows landings. Since most of the gillnet fisheries and right whales on their
the five vessels that are currently vessels in the South Atlantic have calving grounds in the Southeastern
participating in the fishery. permits for both HMS and non-HMS U.S. Restricted Area. NMFS will work
Response: NMFS does not currently (Council-managed) species, if gillnets with the team to minimize mortality of
employ a gear based permit were no longer an authorized gear for these endangered marine mammals.
endorsement for shark fisheries; rather, harvesting HMS, these vessels would Comment 6: Identification of finetooth
permit holders possess either directed continue to land, and discard dead, sharks is difficult because they are often
or incidental permits and both permits finetooth sharks caught as bycatch in confused with blacktip sharks.
are valid for any of the authorized gears pursuit of other non-HMS species. If Response: The Agency agrees that
for sharks (gillnet, bottom and pelagic gillnet gear were banned for HMS, finetooth sharks are difficult to identify,
longlines, handline, rod and reel, or fishermen in other fisheries would especially for dealers who are required
bandit gear). NMFS did not consider continue to catch finetooth sharks but to positively identify shark species
specific permit endorsements or gear- without coordination with management based on a log (carcass that has been
based permits in this rulemaking, but entities and possibly without observer gutted and finned). The mandatory HMS
may consider options to limit vessel coverage. Furthermore, Federal identification workshops for all shark
participation in the shark gillnet fishery regulations currently in place for the dealers being implemented through this
in the future. Logbook and permit data Southeastern U.S. Restricted Area final rule will provide shark dealers
does not indicate that there has been a prohibit the use of shark gillnet gear in with tools and instruction that they
significant increase in recent years in the waters between Savannah, GA and could employ to prevent mis-
the number of vessels targeting sharks Sebastian Inlet, FL. ‘‘Shark gillnet gear’’ identification of finetooth sharks, and
with gillnet gear. The majority of shark is defined as a gillnet with stretched minimize the likelihood of confusion
fishermen deploy bottom longline gear mesh greater than 5 inches. Gillnets that between finetooth and other species of
for LCS; however, directed shark gillnet are less than 5 inches stretched mesh Carcharinid sharks, including blacktip.
fishermen most frequently target SCS could still be deployed if the directed Comment 7: Spanish mackerel
and blacktip sharks. As blacktip sharks shark gillnet fishery were banned, and fishermen catch finetooth sharks
and the SCS species complex are not finetooth sharks would continue to be intermixed with blacktip sharks.
overfished or experiencing overfishing, landed as a result. Gillnets are already Response: An analysis of Federal
capping the number of vessels allowed banned in Georgia and Florida, and are logbook data from 1999–2004 indicates
into the fishery may not be justified. restricted to less than 100 feet in length that 17 vessels landed finetooth sharks
Comment 5: NMFS received several for recreational fisheries in South with gillnet gear and possessed both a
comments in favor of banning gillnets Carolina. Spanish mackerel and commercial shark
for the directed harvest of sharks, VMS is a critical tool in the permit. Since gillnets are a not selective
including: banning gillnets might help enforcement of time/area closures. gear and finetooth sharks, blacktip
sharks, and Spanish mackerel have A recent analysis of landings data associated with shrimp trawls, however,
similar temperature and habitat submitted via the Fishing Vessel they may have been present. The Marine
preferences, it is not unreasonable to Logbook/Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish/ Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey
assume that all three species are landed South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper/King (MRFSS) and the Texas Parks and
in some gillnet sets. The Federal and Spanish Mackerel/Shark (Coastal Wildlife Service estimate that 14,811
logbook data indicated that Spanish Fisheries Logbook) from 1999 - 2004, finetooth sharks were landed between
mackerel were the most abundant non- indicates that a total of 46 vessels 1999 and 2005. The data used for the
HMS reported on trips that landed reported landings of finetooth sharks. Of 2002 SCS stock assessment indicate that
finetooth sharks and accounted for these, 17 vessels had only a shark there were several years when all of the
approximately 13.6 percent (by weight) limited access permit, 17 vessels had recreational landings of finetooth shark
of landings. both a shark and a Spanish mackerel occurred in the Gulf of Mexico.
Comment 8: NMFS states that 80 permit (managed under the Coastal However, in other years, the majority of
percent of finetooth sharks are caught in Pelagics FMP and its amendments by recreationally caught finetooth sharks
gillnets, and the majority are landed in the South Atlantic Fishery Management were caught in both the South Atlantic
FL and GA, but gillnets are banned in Council), and 12 vessels had neither and Mid-Atlantic regions. This could be
these states. So finetooth sharks must permit. In 2003, 15 vessels reported attributed to changes in oceanographic
not be all that coastal if they are being landings of finetooth sharks and all of conditions and/or fishing effort.
caught outside of state waters (> 3 these vessels had both a shark directed Comment 11: NMFS should
miles). permit and a Spanish mackerel permit. investigate bycatch in other areas and
Response: Generally speaking, Furthermore, since approximately 29 consider the suite of management
finetooth sharks inhabit shallow coastal vessels are either targeting other non- measures by other states that may be
waters of the western Atlantic Ocean HMS species and keeping finetooth affecting finetooth shark mortality. In
from North Carolina to Brazil. Finetooth sharks opportunistically, or are not the State of Texas, there are bag limits
sharks travel north to waters adjacent to covered under existing management but no commercial fisheries. Sharks can
South Carolina when the surface regimes, these vessels would likely only be caught on rod and reel. They
temperature of the water increases to continue to contribute to finetooth shark may be sold, but only one fish per boat.
approximately 20°C then return south to fishing mortality by participating in There are also some shrimp trawl
off the coast of Florida when coastal gillnet fisheries within the closures (seasonal) that may provide
temperatures fall below 20°C. Finetooth finetooth shark’s range. some indirect benefits for finetooth and
seem to prefer water temperatures in Comment 10: NMFS received several other sharks.
this range, and they feed primarily on comments questioning the 2002 SCS Response: Since this comment was
menhaden, which are also generally stock assessment, including: In 1995, 95 received, NMFS has contacted the
found closer to shore. However, percent of finetooth landings came from Regional Fishery Management Councils
finetooth sharks are opportunistic and PLL and not gillnets, but in 1996–2000, and discussed possible fisheries where
will likely inhabit more coastal state there was a shift to gillnet, and I do not finetooth sharks may be harvested
waters or locales offshore in Federal understand why; the document says that incidentally. The Agency has also
waters as oceanographic and feeding less than 1 percent came from the compiled a list of state and Council
conditions allow. Finetooth sharks may commercial fishery in the GOM, how regulations that affect gillnet and bottom
not be harvested with gillnets within can shrimp trawls not catch finetooth?; longline fisheries and therefore may
State waters of Flordia, Georgia, or and, 100 percent of recreational affect finetooth fishing mortality either
South Carolina, however; they would landings came from the GOM, it just directly or indirectly. Creel surveys
still be vulnerable to fishing mortality does not make any sense. from Texas Parks and Wildlife indicate
resulting from interactions with gear in Response: NMFS analyzed landings that on average, nine finetooth sharks
other fisheries and may be landed in data from 1999–2004 for the analysis of are landed a year, with 193 landings
Florida if they are caught in gillnets alternatives to prevent overfishing of documented since 1984. Shark specific
deployed in Federal waters. finetooth sharks in this rulemaking. It is landing restrictions similar to those
Comment 9: There are only five possible that there are inconsistencies imposed by Texas and other states,
vessels in the fishery so where do all the between more recent data analyzed for while helpful, may not significantly
catches come from? this rulemaking and data employed for reduce finetooth landings as the
Response: The five gillnet vessels that the 2002 stock assessment. This could majority of finetooth landings are from
target sharks with drift gillnet or be the result of misidentification or commercial fisheries in the South
strikenet gear are responsible for less misreporting of finetooth sharks, general Atlantic that use non-selective gear.
than 10 percent of the commercial lack of data for the 2002 SCS stock Successful management of this species
finetooth shark landings. The majority assessment, or changes in fishing effort will likely only be attained through
of finetooth sharks may be landed either that may have occurred. The commenter cooperative efforts between the
in state waters, or by fishermen does not specify which data set in the fishermen, States, Regional Fishery
pursuing other species, such as those 2002 SCS assessment they are referring Management Councils, the Atlantic
managed by the Gulf of Mexico or South to; therefore, it is difficult to explain any States Marine Fisheries Commission,
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils potential inconsistencies. Alternative and NMFS.
(i.e., Spanish mackerel) or species that D4 (identify sources of finetooth shark Comment 12: NMFS received several
are not currently managed (i.e., fishing mortality to identify appropriate comments expressing concerns that the
kingfish). Since these fishermen hold management actions) will include Agency did not know where all
directed shark permits, they can finetooth sharks as a select species for finetooth shark landings are coming
opportunistically keep all finetooth bycatch sub-sampling in the Gulf of from, including: how is it that NMFS
sharks; however, because their harvest Mexico shrimp trawl observer program has catch data coming from dealers, but
of finetooth sharks is incidental to which will provide additional bycatch does not know which vessels are
landing of other non-HMS species, these and landings information from this catching finetooth?; NMFS should call
vessels have not been selected for HMS fishery. In the past, finetooth sharks the dealers and find out which types of
observer coverage. were not identified in the bycatch boats are offloading/selling the
finetooth; in 1999, you changed the landed in 2005 was 123 cm, based on 1999 and 2004, average landings of
criteria for boats that could get a measurements obtained from 38 finetooth sharks in recreational and
directed shark permit so that the smaller individuals. commercial fisheries were 11.2 (10
croaker boats, etc. catch sharks, and Comment 14: NMFS received a percent) and 93.6 (90 percent) mt dw/
they have to report to the Federal dealer, number of comments opposed to year, respectively. MRFSS data would
so you should be able to get the dealer alternative D2, implement commercial include landings of finetooth sharks in
information; and dealers should be management measures to reduce fishing state waters, which is where most
required to provide vessel information mortality of finetooth sharks, including: finetooth sharks are found, however,
with all shark landings. A subquota for finetooth sharks is not NMFS can not directly implement
Response: General canvass data necessary; I oppose alternative D2 regulations in state waters. A study by
submitted by federally permitted shark unless the fishery is harvesting its entire Gurshin and Szedlymayer (2001)
dealers does not include information on commercial quota; and, we are opposed estimated that only 10 percent (1 of 10
the vessels from which seafood products to alternative D2 because it appears that captured) of sharpnose sharks, a similar
were purchased. These reports are the allocated quota is not being species, died as a result of capture on
submitted every two weeks and include overharvested. hook and line. Post release mortality
total purchases (landings) by species Response: The quota for small coastal depends on water temperature, hook
acquired by individual dealers. NMFS sharks is not currently, and has never used, whether or not live bait is used,
has contacted states between Texas and been, fully utilized. Observer data and the overall condition of the shark at
North Carolina to determine whether indicate that finetooth sharks are not the hooking. Estimates of finetooth shark
they had any records of finetooth sharks primary shark species harvested in the landings were obtained from MRFSS
being landed. Many states maintain trip directed shark gillnet fishery. Since and included in this rulemaking. NMFS
ticket programs that can be linked to finetooth sharks have a tendency to roll also does not prefer recreational
individual vessels from which seafood upon contact with gillnet gear, measures at this time because there is
products were purchased. This prohibiting landings of finetooth sharks already a conservative bag limit in place
information was analyzed for the would not reduce fishing mortality, as and a minimum size well above the size
Florida trip ticket program because the most of these fish would then be at first maturity. Recreational measures
majority of finetooth shark landings are discarded dead. Additional dead may be considered in the future as
occurring there. Starting in 2000, some discards may encourage fishermen to necessary. NMFS will continue to
Florida trip tickets reporting finetooth make more trips to replace lost explore all sources of finetooth shark
sharks identified the vessel. Of the revenues, leading to more dead discards fishing mortality, both recreational and
vessels making these landings, six and an increase in fishing mortality commercial, and will consider further
vessels had only a Federal shark permit, level. Since the rest of the SCS complex exploration of the landings reported to
eight had both a Federal shark and is not experiencing overfishing and is NMFS and individual states.
Spanish mackerel permit, and three not overfished, reducing the overall SCS Comment 16: Due to the lack of
vessels had neither permit. The fact that quota was not considered in this FMP. progress towards ending overfishing,
vessels possess multiple permits Comment 15: NMFS received several finetooth sharks should be added to the
reiterates the need for collaborative comments in support of alternative D3, prohibited species list while means to
management efforts between NMFS, the implement recreational management reduce mortality are investigated.
Regional Fishery Management Councils, measures to reduce fishing mortality of Response: NMFS considered, but did
and individual states. finetooth sharks, including: I support not analyze, an alternative that included
Comment 13: NMFS received a alternative D3 because between 2000 adding finetooth sharks to the
comment based on the 2005 observer and 2003, 6,732 and 5,742 finetooth prohibited species list for Atlantic
report for the Directed Shark Gillnet sharks were reported to MRFSS. What is sharks. Presently, finetooth sharks do
Fishery that stated that in the shark the expansion? What are the post- not meet any of the four criteria defined
gillnet fishery, five vessels used three release mortality estimates?; recreational under 50 CFR 635.34(c) for inclusion of
different fishing methods. Of the three landings of finetooth sharks may cause species to the prohibited species list.
methods, the strikenet gets the most the majority of mortality for yet another The existing criteria are: (1) there is
finetooth sharks. This is a fishery that is HMS species; mandatory circle hooks sufficient biological information to
targeting finetooth sharks. The average would reduce mortality; it appears that indicate the stock warrants protection,
size is 123 cm for finetooth sharks, the actions described in the preferred such as indications of depletion or low
which is smaller than what the alternative only intend to pursue reproductive potential or the species is
recreational fishery can take. commercial mortality and ignore on the ESA candidate list; (2) the
Response: The 2005 observer report recreational mortality; there is a species is rarely encountered or
indicated an increase in the observed problem with shark reporting and observed caught in HMS fisheries, (3)
landings of finetooth sharks with MRFSS; no one reports finetooth sharks the species is not commonly
strikenet gear. This gear is generally to the Councils; and MRFSS does not encountered or observed caught as
used to target schools of blacktip sharks, have sharks listed, but that is where I bycatch in fishing operations, or (4) the
which are located from the air using a would suggest looking for information. species is difficult to distinguish from
spotter plane. Historically, most Response: NMFS is not selecting other prohibited species (i.e., look alike
observed landings of finetooth sharks recreational measures (alternative D3) to issue). With regards to these criteria,
occur in the drift gillnet segment of the reduce fishing mortality of finetooth finetooth sharks are not currently
fishery. 2005 may have been an sharks, at this time, because the vast overfished, are commonly encountered
anomalous year with regard to prey majority of finetooth sharks are landed and observed in HMS fisheries, are
abundance or distribution, thereby commercially, most recreational commonly caught as bycatch in non-
making finetooth sharks more fisheries for finetooth sharks are likely HMS fisheries, and are distinguishable
vulnerable to strikenet gear. Strikenet in state waters, and there is no from prohibited species upon capture
fishermen are subject to the same conclusive evidence that circle hooks (prior to dressing). As new biological
restrictions as other shark gillnet gear. would reduce post hooking release and fishery data becomes available,
The average size of finetooth sharks mortality of finetooth sharks. Between NMFS may make adjustments to the
prohibited species list, as needed in the Recommendation 00–14, the U.S. killing of marlin. NMFS should
future. underharvest from 2001 was applied to implement the 250 marlin limit and the
the ‘‘negative’’ 2002 balance and was of calendar year; I’m not opposed to the
C. Atlantic Billfish
sufficient magnitude to allow the United 250–fish limit (alternative E6), but
i. ICCAT Landing Limits States to comply with the somehow the U.S. got into a bad deal
Comment 1: NMFS received a number recommendation. The United States and is stuck with it; and I support
of basic questions pertaining to the does not have a commercial quota or alternative E6 only if the original
history, data, U.S. actions, and the allowable level of landings for Atlantic accounting system (RBS data) is used to
requirements of the ICCAT marlin billfish. Commercial possession and sale count U.S. landings.
recommendations. The comments of Atlantic billfish have been prohibited Response: NMFS agrees that the
included: Where did the 250 marlin since 1988 in the United States. United States is obligated to implement
limit come from? What was the Internationally, commercial quotas vary the 250 recreationally caught Atlantic
biological data used to limit the by country. Foreign pelagic longline and marlin landing limit and that more
purse seine vessels, the gear types that needs to be done to reduce fishing
recreational harvest of blue and white
dominate commercial Atlantic billfish mortality levels on these species if they
marlin to 250 fish?; has the 250 white
landings, are restricted to 50 percent are to recover. The U.S. landing limit
marlin limit ever been exceeded?; what
and 33 percent of Atlantic blue and was part of a comprehensive plan to
is the harvest quota for the commercial
white marlin landings, respectively, begin the process of rebuilding Atlantic
harvest of blue and white marlin?; what
from the years 1996 or 1999, whichever marlins and that obligated other nations
is the breakdown of white and blue
is greater. The breakdown of domestic to make substantial sacrifices on behalf
marlin bycatch compared to the
commercial and recreational harvests of their fishing interests. NMFS shares
recreational catch?; and, where does
varies considerably by year and are concerns that a failure of the United
NMFS get the authority to establish a
presented in detail in Chapter 4 of the States to fully implement an ICCAT
quota (250–fish marlin limit)? recommendation may allow other
Response: The annual landing limit of Final Consolidated HMS FMP. For the
period 1999 - 2004, pelagic longline nations to rationalize non-compliance
250 recreationally caught blue and
dead discards and recreational harvests on their behalf. NMFS further
white marlin, combined, stems from
of Atlantic blue marlin averaged 44.2 acknowledges that domestic
ICCAT Recommendation 00–13. ICCAT
metric tons (mt) and 22.9 mt, implementation of the 250 Atlantic
recommendations are binding marlin landing limit has taken longer
instruments that the United States, as a respectively; Atlantic white marlin
averaged 31.8 mt and 2.3 mt, than anticipated. The United States has
contracting party to ICCAT, is obligated led international conservation efforts on
to implement. Recommendation 00–13 respectively; and Atlantic sailfish
averaged 24.5 mt and 81.6 mt, Atlantic marlin and other species and
was proposed by the United States and will maintain its credibility and
established a number of additional respectively. These numbers do not
necessarily reflect the true mortality leadership role on these issues by fully
stringent conservation measures implementing its international
intended to improve the stock status of contributions of each sector to the
fishery. Recent data on post-release obligations through the adoption of the
Atlantic marlin. The 250 marlin limit selected alternatives.
was the result of a dynamic mortality indicates that the aggregate
NMFS believes that adoption of
international negotiation at ICCAT that domestic recreational billfish mortality
ICCAT recommendation 00–13 was an
included, and was supported by, the contribution may be equal to, or greater
important step toward stemming long-
U.S. recreational, commercial, and than, the aggregate domestic pelagic
term declines in Atlantic marlin
government commissioners. longline billfish mortality contribution, populations and rebuilding their
Considerations in the U.S. negotiating in some years, and may be the result of populations. Under this agreement, the
position included, but were not limited the substantial difference in the scale of U.S. was limited to landing 250
to, data from the Recreational Billfish these fisheries. recreationally caught blue and white
Survey and the Marine Recreational Comment 2: NMFS received public marlin combined on an annual basis, as
Statistics Survey, and intentionally comment both endorsing and opposing previously discussed. The U.S. has
included a buffer to account for changes preferred alternative E6, Implement reported marlin landings below the 250
in the fishery and improved monitoring. ICCAT Recommendations on fish limit in three of the previous four
The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act Recreational Marlin Landings Limits, for years. Other ICCAT nations whose
provides NMFS with the regulatory widely varying reasons, and with fishermen catch and sell Atlantic marlin
authority to implement ICCAT varying qualifiers. Comments in support were obligated to reduce their pelagic
recommendations by authorizing the of this preferred alternative included: longline and purse seine landings of
promulgation of regulations as may be We endorse alternative E6; I support blue marlin by 50 percent and white
necessary and appropriate to implement alternative E6 because it has been five marlin by 67 percent. The
binding recommendations adopted by years since the ICCAT recommendation recommendation also required release of
ICCAT. The 250 marlin limit is for both and we need stricter regulations; NMFS live marlins brought to the vessel along
blue and white Atlantic marlin has to implement alternative E6 to with other various restrictions. As
combined, and was exceeded for the comply with international obligations; conditions in the fishery change, NMFS
calendar year 2002, when the U.S. NMFS must codify the 250–fish marlin will continue to review the
reported 279 recreationally landed limit because it came as a quid pro quo appropriateness of measures contained
marlins. This exceedance was the result with other countries agreeing to in the ICCAT recommendations and
of methodological change that was measures. If the U.S. does not codify the seek changes as appropriate.
applied to U.S. recreational landings 250–fish limit, it will result in loosening NMFS acknowledges the concerns
retroactively. Further, while the United of restrictions in other countries, which expressed by anglers regarding the use
States exceeded its landing limit in that we do not want; if something is not of a different accounting methodology
one year, the United States remained in done now, ESA will take all the for compliance purposes than was
compliance with Recommendation 00– fisheries away from us. We should show originally used to contribute to the
13 because, as allowed by ICCAT we are doing all we can to stop the negotiation of the 250 marlin limit.
However, as discussed in the response blue marlin in Puerto Rico can be United States has landed only 75
to Comment 1, the 250 marlin limit was addressed through enforcement of percent of its landing limit, on average,
based in part on RBS and MRFSS data, existing management measures over the past four years and in half of
but also intentionally included a buffer (minimum size, no sale, etc.); and, we the years reviewed, the United States
to account for changes in the fishery and must address the foreign sources of has been 40 percent below the allowable
improved monitoring. The number was billfish mortality at ICCAT if we are to landing limit for recreationally caught
the result of a negotiation at ICCAT and achieve the recovery of billfish stocks. Atlantic marlin.
not a specific scientific methodology. Response: NMFS disagrees that the Further, this rule to implement the
Under the recommendation, the United selected alternative to implement the ICCAT recreational marlin landings
States is obligated to report all verifiable ICCAT established recreationally caught limit was specifically designed to
recreational landings of Atlantic blue marlin landing limit, is unnecessary or minimize economic impacts if fishing or
and white marlin for compliance arbitrary. This alternative will retention patterns change and cause the
purposes. New sources of data on implement U.S. obligations negotiated United States to approach the 250
domestic recreational landings have as part of a key international agreement marlin limit. Should the 250 marlin
been developed since the 2000 that has the potential to dramatically limit be achieved, because few marlin
negotiation, including catch-card reduce fishing mortality of Atlantic are landed (see the response to
programs in North Carolina and marlins. As discussed in the response to Comment 2), NMFS believes that it
Maryland as well as the billfish and Comment 1, the United States is would occur relatively late in the
swordfish reporting line, which provide fishing season, thereby affecting a
obligated to implement ICCAT
a small number of additional marlin limited number of fishery participants
recommendations under the Atlantic
each year. These sources of data have and resulting in relatively minor
Tunas Convention Act. Further, to
represented a very limited number of impacts to the fishery as a whole. There
maintain credibility and leadership on
verifiable fish in any given year, with could potentially be heightened
international billfish conservation
tournaments representing the majority localized impacts in a small number of
issues, and limit opportunities for
of landings. communities, where, for instance,
foreign nations to rationalize potential
tournament participation may be
Comment 3: Comments opposing non-conformity with billfish
reduced or a tournament cancelled.
preferred alternative E6, Implement conservation measures, the United
However, based on the significant level
ICCAT Recommendations on States must abide by its international of catch and release fishing practiced in
Recreational Marlin Landings Limits, obligations. Unilateral elimination of the Atlantic billfish fishery (75 to 99
included: We cannot comprehend why the 250 marlin landing limit is not an percent), NMFS believes any reductions
NMFS, knowing of our small percentage option available to the United States. in participation would be minor as
of the harvest would even consider However, should ICCAT choose to do so fishermen could still catch and release
establishing severe restrictions on the during a future Commission meeting, it Atlantic marlin.
recreational harvest; this alternative A6 could remove the restriction thereby Based on public comment that
is unnecessary and arbitrary and should allowing the United States to follow indicated more substantial concerns
be eliminated, especially since the suit. The implementation of U.S. over potential adverse economic
fishery is mostly catch and release; it international obligations is critical to a impacts to the fishery if catch and
should be removed at the 2006 ICCAT credible negotiating position and release only fishing for Atlantic white
meeting; from a conservation and reduces the ability of other nations to marlin were required, as well as a
negotiating standpoint, the 250 landing rationalize potential non-conformity number of other factors including, but
cap is neither needed nor of any value with international billfish conservation not limited to, the impending receipt of
to the United States; mandating this cap measures. Under the selected a new assessment for Atlantic white
when low marlin landings are already alternative, size limits will only increase marlin, upcoming international
driven by a strong, voluntary if the United States is approaching its negotiations on Atlantic marlin, and a
conservation ethic will do little or 250 marlin limit. The intent of a somewhat limited ecological benefit,
nothing to reduce overall marlin potential in-season minimum size limit NMFS did not select the alternative to
mortality; why implement increased increase is to minimize impacts to the allow catch and release only fishing for
size limits to avoid reaching the 250 fishery by slowing landings and Atlantic white marlin. NMFS
mark, when the existing regulations allowing the fishery to continue until acknowledges that the 250 recreational
seem to work?; there should be a the 250 fish limit is reached but not marlin allocated to the United States
provision for underages and overages; exceeded. Allowing landings to represent a small portion of total billfish
the 250 marlin limit derives only from continue at a slower pace over a longer mortality from the full ICCAT pelagic
tournament landings and is not an period in the fishing year is anticipated longline fleet. However, from a domestic
appropriate limit for the fishery as a to have fewer socio-economic impacts perspective, if the full allocation of 250
whole; if NMFS restricts landings of than a shift to catch and release only marlin was landed by the recreational
marlin species to 250 fish and prohibits fishing earlier in a given year. sector, it would represent approximately
white marlin catches for five years, Consistent with ICCAT one-third (35 percent) of the annual
tournament fishing will take a massive Recommendation 00–14, this rule number of Atlantic marlin (blue and
economic hit. Towns that host mandates carry-over of overharvest and white combined) discarded dead from
tournaments would have to rely on an allows for carry-over of underhavest. the domestic pelagic longline fleet, on
alternative form of tourism; I oppose The 250 marlin limit did not stem from average, over the four year period 2001–
Alternative E6 because it will cause only tournament landings. The 250 fish 2004. Total mortality inflicted upon the
economic harm, unless anglers switch to limit is appropriate for the U.S. directed stock is of more importance to the
blue marlin; 250 fish are insignificant billfish fishery at this time. NMFS overall health of the stock than landings
compared to longline bycatch mortality; disagrees that implementation of the or dead discards. As noted in the
and alternative E6 is problematic 250 marlin limit will cause substantial response to Comment 1, recent
considering the unknown landings in adverse economic impacts. As discussed estimates and data on post-release
the Caribbean. The large landings of in the response to Comment 2, the mortality indicate that the aggregate
domestic recreational white marlin will consider the appropriateness of an marlin by U.S. citizens. If an angler
mortality contribution may be equal to inseason minimum size increase or onboard a U.S. flagged vessel fishing in
or greater than the aggregate domestic prohibition on retention based on the foreign waters or on the high-seas lands
pelagic longline white marlin mortality criteria identified in the discussion of a fish, then the vessel owner, or their
contribution, in some years. This the selected alternative in Chapter 4 of designee, is required to report that fish
appears to be a result of the substantial the Final Consolidated HMS FMP, and to NMFS.
difference in the scale of these fisheries. contained in this final rule. Even if Comment 7: The British Virgin
NMFS acknowledges that there is some retention were prohibited for the Islands (BVI) have separate regulations
uncertainty associated with marlin remainder of a given fishing year, from the U.S. International coordination
landings statistics from the U.S. anglers could continue catch-and- on HMS management is critical. In 15
Caribbean, and the Agency is working to release fishing for Atlantic marlin, and minutes time, we can be out of U.S.
improve these statistics by increasing Atlantic sailfish would be available for Virgin Island waters. For us, the
enforcement of existing permitting and landing. As previously discussed, 75 to importance is the coordination of
reporting requirements, including those 99 percent of all billfish are currently international HMS management. The
for tournaments. Finally, NMFS agrees released on a voluntary basis, so NMFS BVI folks can catch and sell their
that foreign sources of billfish mortality anticipates little disruption in the billfish. What is being done on the
must be addressed at ICCAT if Atlantic fishery, should either a minimum size international front to resolve these types
billfish stocks are to recover. As such, increase or a catch-and-release fishery of conservation concerns? The Draft
the United States will continue its become necessary. As discussed in the Consolidated HMS FMP does not
efforts to champion billfish conservation response to Comment 3, consistent with include anything that addresses
at ICCAT and in other appropriate fora. ICCAT Recommendation 00–14, this international coordination efforts.
Comment 4: NMFS received a number rule will mandate carry-over of Response: NMFS appreciates the
of comments asking for clarification of overharvest and will allow for carry- frustration felt by anglers in the
authority and the regulations pertaining over of underhavest into the next Caribbean regarding the current
to the potential implementation of management period. The Agency will differences in regulations between the
alternative E6, Implement ICCAT monitor recreational landings of U.S. and the BVI. The Agency also
Recommendations on Recreational Atlantic blue and white marlin and will agrees that Atlantic billfish management
Marlin Landings Limits, including: make decisions as appropriate regarding requires international cooperation to be
Would the ‘‘priority’’ be given to in-season management actions based on successful. However, these types of
tournaments in catching the 250 fish the decision criteria identified in the international management issues are
limit?; if 20 tournament boats catch and HMS FMP and in this final rule. NMFS beyond the scope of this domestic
release 10 fish in the season, what are is not reducing the 250 recreationally rulemaking, and, as such, this final rule
the rest of the private and recreational caught marlin landings limit. and the Final Consolidated HMS FMP
anglers and thousands of boats to do? Comment 5: NMFS received a number
do not address relations between the
Can the unharvested portion of the 250 of suggestions for substitute alternatives
United States and the British Virgin
fish limit be carried over into the next to preferred alternative E6, including:
Islands or any other nation on any
year? Once the quota is established, Spread the 250 fish limit over 12
subject. International management
which we have never approached, months so that all areas get to land
issues are handled jointly between
except for the year NMFS counted marlin (spatial and temporal); divide the
Department of Commerce and the
differently, then what happens?; and, 250 fish limit up by state. Let the states
Department of State.
does the U.S. have the authority to exchange billfish for bluefin tuna quota
reduce the 250–fish limit? It goes until each state can support the Comment 8: Will the ICCAT landing
against ICCAT. In every other case, the tournaments they need to; white and limit be placed under ‘‘Quotas’’ in the
U.S. must give fishermen a reasonable blue marlin should have separate limits Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), so
opportunity to catch fish. because they are such different animals; that it will be easy to update annually
Response: The 250 recreationally and, not landing the 250 marlin as with tuna and swordfish quotas?
caught marlin landing limit applies to recreational landing limit and Response: The majority of the
the Atlantic recreational billfish fishery eliminating the entire commercial regulatory text associated with ICCAT
as a whole. NMFS does not intend to billfish harvest could not solve any of landing limits is contained in 50 CFR
assign Atlantic marlins that are the problems. To solve the problem, the 635.27(d). This section also includes the
available for landing to any particular United States should prohibit the Atlantic tunas and swordfish quotas,
sector or component of the recreational importation of billfish, swordfish, and and is the most appropriate place for the
fishery in this rulemaking. NMFS tuna from other countries. marlin regulations.
appreciates the concern expressed by Response: NMFS appreciates these Comment 9: NMFS received a number
some anglers regarding the opportunity comments and suggestions. ICCAT of comments on the potential impacts of
to land a fish, given the large number of recently conducted a stock assessment the 250 marlin limit in combination
participants in the fishery. However, the of blue and white marlin. As such, with the possible shift to only catch and
United States has been bound by the ICCAT may reconsider the existing release fishing for Atlantic white marlin,
250 recreationally caught Atlantic management measures for marlin. If this including: the U.S. will catch the 250–
marlin landing limit since June of 2001, occurs, NMFS may consider these and fish limit if white marlin landings are
and only in one year has that 250 fish other options as needed, if necessary prohibited, because catches of other
number been achieved, as previously and appropriate, in a future rulemaking. species will be redistributed. When you
discussed. Under this rule to implement Comment 6: I am opposed to counting ban white marlin, people will fish for
ICCAT recommendations on fish that are caught by U.S. vessels blue marlin. The bigger Northeast
recreational marlin landings limits, if fishing abroad against the United States’ tournaments will fish harder on blue
the landings limit is approached, quota. marlin; it’s not desirable to make all of
regardless of whether those fish are Response: Consistent with its ICCAT the fish under the limit be blue marlin;
landed by a small number of vessels or obligations, the United States accounts with the proposed change in the fishing
by many individual vessels, the Agency for all recreational landings of Atlantic year, some tournaments could be
penalized if they take place after the carried-over like every other quota; (including dockside intercepts), as well
250–fish limit is exceeded. codifying the 250–fish limit is not a as cooperative agreements to access
Response: Based on public comment problem, but the proposed regulations landings tag/card data from the states of
expressing concern over the ratio of with respect to overages and underages North Carolina and Maryland. NMFS is
potential adverse economic impacts to is unacceptable. Rulemakings to deal always trying to improve its data
estimated ecological benefits, the with underages should not be necessary. collection systems, and this may
prospect of a new international Response: As discussed in the include future tagging programs, log
assessment, an impending international response to Comment 3 above, this final book reporting programs, and
negotiation, and other factors, NMFS rule mandates carry-forward of improvements to the MRFSS, LPS and
does not prefer to implement catch and overharvest and allows carry-forward of other systems. If the 250 marlin landing
release only fishing for Atlantic white underharvest, consistent with ICCAT limit is achieved, NMFS will likely
marlin at this time. NMFS disagrees Recommendation 00–14. A failure to notify the public via a number of
with the characterization that some account for overharvest, as suggested by mechanisms, including: publication of a
tournaments may be penalized if they one commenter, would be inconsistent notice in the Federal Register, faxing
take place after the 250 fish limit is with ICCAT Recommendation and notices to interested stakeholders,
exceeded. The United States has been result in non-compliance by the U.S. notification of the HMS consulting
bound by the 250 fish limit since it went The U.S. has pledged to its ICCAT parties, telephone contact with
into effect at ICCAT in June of 2001. partners not to carry forward recreational constituent leaders, posting
Since then, the only mechanism that the underharvest until uncertainty information on the HMS website,
Agency had available to address surrounding landings of marlin in the placing information on the HMS
fulfillment of the 250 marlin landing Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Information telephone line, and working
limit was to implement an emergency U.S. Caribbean is reduced. The Agency with popular sportfishing magazines
closure of the fishery. Thus, any will publish a notice in the Federal and websites to notify constituents,
tournament that would have occurred Register to decrease or increase the along with other means, as appropriate.
after the 250 fish limit had been annual 250 marlin landings limit NMFS encourages the public to
reached, even prior to this action, would resulting from the carry forward of over- continue to suggest potential
have been required to operate on a catch or underharvests of Atlantic marlins. A improvements. It should be noted
and release basis only. However, they rulemaking will be required to increase however, that any reporting system
would have had little warning. This rule or decrease the 250 marlin recreational relies on the willingness of anglers to
was specifically designed to minimize landing limit resulting from a new accurately report. When this does not
the likelihood of a shift to catch and ICCAT recommendation. occur, the veracity of the data is
release only fishing for Atlantic marlin. Comment 11: NMFS received several compromised. NMFS acknowledges that
It will allow the Agency to slow marlin questions, comments, and suggestions
recreational Atlantic billfish landings
landings by quickly increasing on billfish monitoring and reporting,
data do not account for every billfish
minimum size(s) for the specific including: how comprehensive or
landed, and thus some level of
purpose of avoiding a mandatory shift to adequate is the monitoring of
uncertainty surrounds billfish landings
catch and release only fishing for recreational billfish landings?; how
estimates. NMFS has undertaken efforts
Atlantic marlin, if possible, to minimize would the public know when 250 fish
to improve enforcement of reporting
adverse impacts. If the ICCAT are landed? Marlin recreational data
requirements, has improved the MRFSS
recreationally caught marlin landings collection methods are not accurate.
and LPS, and has recently received a
limit is still achieved, despite the Ninety percent of fish caught now are
report from the National Research
minimum size increase, then the not reported. NMFS should implement
mandatory logbooks for all permitted Council that may allow for
Agency can quickly mandate catch and
HMS fisheries, commercial and improvements to be made to some data
release only fishing. Thus, any
recreational, and require that trip collection systems.
tournament that occurs, or would have
occurred, after the 250 fish limit is/was reports be submitted because MRFSS Comment 12: NMFS received
achieved, either prior to implementation interviews are not effective; contrasting comments on the proposed
of this action or after, would have to enforcement is lacking. That is why five-day minimum notification period
operate under an all release scenario. people do not report their billfish for in-season billfish management
This final rule actually benefits landings. NMFS should develop a better actions intended to ensure compliance
tournaments because it allows NMFS to system to account for marlin landings, with the ICCAT 250 marlin landing
implement in-season minimum size such as tail tags; and, NMFS is not limit. Comments opposing a minimum
increases, thereby reducing the receiving all non-tournament marlin five-day notification window included;
likelihood of exceeding the 250 limit landings. There are clubs that land we support alternitive E(6), establish the
and forcing a shift to an all release marlin and do not report them. NMFS 250 recreationally caught marlin
fishery. Further, this final rule includes should instead require each club to landing limit. However, 21 days would
a 14-day delayed effective date, which report their marlin landings, just like be the minimum acceptable notice
will further allow tournament operators tournaments are currently required to period; if an additional increase in
and billfish anglers to adjust to any do. Penalties should be imposed on minimum size becomes necessary, a
possible in-season management actions. fishing clubs that do not report. notice for an inseason adjustment
Comment 10: NMFS received a Response: NMFS has a should be given at least 30 days in
number of comments regarding carry comprehensive system in place to advance. This will give tournament
over of underharvest and overharvests, record billfish landings that includes directors ample time to notify
including: if NMFS intends to the Recreational Billfish Survey, the participants of a size change;
implement the 250–fish landing limit, Atlantic HMS Non-tournament Billfish tournament directors will need more
underages should be added to the next and Swordfish Reporting system, the than a few days (about a month) to make
year’s limit and fishermen should not be Large Pelagics Survey (including changes to their regulations, minimum
penalized if the limit is exceeded; the dockside intercepts), and the Marine sizes, and brochures if the United States
U.S. should mandate that underages be Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey approaches the 250–fish marlin limit;
and, five days is not enough time to recommendations or staving off more time. The implementation of circle hook
make changes to the Atlantic billfish stringent in-season management requirements is an important first step
regulations and to inform the public of measures and will provide anglers and in reducing mortality in the directed
such changes, as specified in Preferred tournament operators an improved billfish fishery. NMFS may consider
Alternative E6, which would implement ability to adapt to any potential in- catch and release only fishing options
ICCAT Recommendations regarding season changes. NMFS also believes that for Atlantic white marlin as well as
recreational marlin landings. NMFS will there is a substantial misunderstanding other billfish conservation measures in
probably just shut down tournaments. of this provision. The minimum 14 day future rulemakings, as necessary and
Most HMS tournaments print their delay in effective date means that upon appropriate. In regard to the Atlantic
information packets long before their publication, any in-season action to white marlin ESA listing review, any
start date. To the extent that in-season increase the minimum legal size of management measures in place at the
marlin adjustments can be avoided, they Atlantic marlin or requirement to shift time of the review would be considered
should be. Comments supportive of a the fishery to catch and release only during deliberations of the listing
minimum five day notification period cannot become effective in less than review team. NMFS cannot forecast the
for in-season management action fourteen days. It does not mean that no impacts of any particular management
included: A five-day notice should more than 14 days advanced notice can action on the outcome of the anticipated
provide sufficient time for in-season be provided to the public, tournament ESA listing review.
billfish management actions. Bluefin operators, and anglers. The Agency will Comment 14: NMFS received a
tuna has a shorter notice period. seek to project potential regulatory number of comments opposing
Especially with the Internet, five days is action as far ahead as reasonably alternative E7, Allow only catch and
sufficient time for billfish regulatory possible to aid in mitigating any release fishing for Atlantic white marlin
notification for changes in size limits or potential adverse impacts to the extent from January 1, 2007 to December 31,
closures. practicable. 2011. Those comments include:
allowing only catch and release
Response: NMFS appreciates the ii. White Marlin Landing Restrictions recreational fishing for Atlantic white
concerns expressed by tournament Comment 13: NMFS received a marlin would have substantial adverse
operators and fishery participants that a number of comments in support of economic impacts on the recreational
five-day minimum delay in effective alternative E7, Allow Only Catch and fishing community, including charter
date may present difficulties with regard Release Fishing for Atlantic White boat operators, shoreside facilities, and
to potential rule changes just prior to or Marlin from January 1, 2007 to entire communities that host white
during a tournament. In selecting a December 31, 2011. Comments in marlin tournaments; NMFS
period for notification and support of this alternative included the underestimated the negative economic
implementation of potential in-season need for NMFS to do all it can to avoid impacts of prohibiting landings of
regulatory changes to ensure having Atlantic white marlin placed on Atlantic white marlin; prohibiting
compliance with ICCAT recreational the Endangered Species Act (ESA) List landings of white marlin would do little
marlin landings limits, NMFS sought to of Threatened and Endangered Species; to improve the population status of the
balance the need to act quickly, if the need to reduce fishing mortality to species, the landings prohibition is
necessary, while providing an the greatest extent possible to help unnecessary given the strong
appropriate period of time to adequately rebuild overfished populations; conservation ethic among U.S. anglers
notify the public of any such regulatory statements that there is no reason to and as evidenced by the high release
changes. If too short of a period were land Atlantic white marlin in rate in the U.S. recreational fishery; the
selected, anglers and tournament tournaments because there are entire U.S. recreational fleet landing a
operators may not have time to become techniques to verify releases, including few white marlin each year has little or
aware of the regulatory changes. If too the use of video and still cameras; it no impact on billfish stocks; what is the
lengthy of a period were selected, makes sense to prohibit all landings, if rationale for prohibiting recreational
restrictions may be enacted too late to not all directed fishing for white marlin, landings of white marlin given the small
ensure compliance with ICCAT since they are in severe decline; we number of recreational landings and the
recommendations or stave off more support alternative E7, the Agency has large economic impact generated by
stringent in-season management the authority to remove the requirement fishing for white marlin?; and, I do not
measures. Based on public comment earlier than five years if the assessment believe in mandatory catch and release.
requesting additional advance notice, a shows that the stock is improving; and, It does not work and the public will not
review of the estimated time necessary there is strong support for prohibiting support it.
to collect and analyze landings the landing of white marlin in Florida Response: In the Draft Consolidated
information and project the date at and the Gulf. HMS FMP, the Agency preferred a catch
which regulatory action may become Response: The Agency appreciates and release only alternative for Atlantic
necessary, this rule provides a delay in these comments, however, based on white marlin as well as a circle hook
the effective date of 14 calendar days for public comment indicating more requirement for the tournament billfish
in-season billfish management actions, significant concerns over potential fishery to reduce mortality and
inclusive of the date of publication in adverse economic impacts to the fishery maximize the associated ecological
the Federal Register. NMFS has if catch and release only fishing for benefits in the directed billfish fishery.
determined that providing more than a Atlantic white marlin were required, as NMFS received strong public comment
14 calendar day minimum delay in well as a number of other factors, opposed to the Atlantic white marlin
effective date would not provide the including but not limited to, the catch and release alternative. As
Agency sufficient control over the impending receipt of a new stock discussed under the response to
fishery if landings rates were high. assessment for Atlantic white marlin Comment 13, NMFS is not prohibiting
NMFS believes that this 14 day period and upcoming international landings of Atlantic white marlin at this
will still allow the agency to implement negotiations on Atlantic marlin, NMFS time. However, the Agency believes the
regulatory changes in a timely manner, did not select the alternative to prohibit implementation of the circle hook
thus ensuring compliance with ICCAT landings of Atlantic white marlin at this requirement is an important first step in
reducing mortality in the directed economic impacts resulting from a shift landings are prohibited. Those
billfish fishery. NMFS appreciates these to catch and release only fishing for comments include: it’s not desirable to
comments and will consider catch and white marlin, as well as the recognition make all of the fish under the ICCAT
release only options as well as other of the limited ecological benefits 250 marlin limit be blue marlin, which
billfish conservation measures in future relative to the potentially adverse social would happen if white marlin landings
rulemakings, as necessary and and economic impacts to billfishermen, are prohibited; I would not support a
appropriate. tournaments, and other shore side prohibition on landing white marlin
Comment 15: NMFS received a businesses, as well as other reasons because we will kill more white marlin
number of comments specifically discussed under the response to converting to targeting blue marlin; and,
pertaining to the potential impacts of Comment 13, the Agency has I oppose alternative E7 because fishing
alternative E7 (which would allow only determined that it is premature to effort will be redistributed to different
catch and release fishing for Atlantic implement this measure at this time. species.
white marlin from January 1, 2007 to The Agency will, however, consider Response: As stated in the responses
December 31, 2011) on tournament catch and release only options as well to Comments 13 and 14 of this section,
operations. Those comments include: as other billfish conservation measures NMFS is not prohibiting landings of
the proposed rule would unfairly affect in future rulemakings, as necessary and Atlantic white marlin at this time.
white marlin tournaments along the appropriate. NMFS understands the concern over
United States mid-Atlantic coast; few Comment 16: NMFS received potential increases in Atlantic blue
white marlin are landed in tournaments; comments requesting that the Agency marlin mortality, given the species’
tournaments are the only cost and modify alternative E7 to allow for some overfished status. The selected circle
personnel effective means to tournament landings of white marlin. hook measure and measures to codify
scientifically sample Atlantic white Those comments include: if the Agency and ensure compliance with the ICCAT
marlin; alternative E7 would change the cannot go with zero landings, then marlin landings limit will address
dynamic of fishing tournaments from implement a cap for tournaments that mortality of both Atlantic blue and
contests where an anglers’ luck or skill already have a history of landing white white marlin in the directed billfish
may prevail (biggest fish) to one where marlin. Do not throw out the whole fishery. The Agency may consider catch
only skill would prevail (most fish) and proposal; and, if NMFS prohibits and release only options, as well as
would thus decrease participation; landings of white marlin, the Agency other billfish conservation measures, in
alternative E7 would create operational should allow retention of recreationally future rulemakings, as necessary and
problems for tournament operators caught white marlin in tournaments or appropriate.
pertaining to verification of released when prominent billfish tournaments Comment 19: Tournament spectators
fish; a fish killed and discarded as are scheduled. can still be involved in release
bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery Response: NMFS appreciates these tournaments if you use large viewing
has no direct economic impact. comments and suggestions to address screens playing movie clips showing the
However, a fish killed as a tournament mortality in the directed billfish fishery. fight and release of marlins. Dead fish
trophy or through release mortality At this time, the Agency does not on the dock do not allow for this type
contributes to a multi-million dollar believe that only allowing Atlantic of participation.
industry and benefits the local economy white marlin to be landed in Response: NMFS applauds the
and the nation as a whole; if alternative tournaments is the most appropriate innovative efforts of some tournament
E7 is implemented, people will not go solution, as nearly all Atlantic white organizers in working to limit marlin
to tournaments to see the results; my marlin reported as retained are landed mortality. The Agency urges tournament
concern for tournaments is that people in tournaments. The Agency will, organizers to be creative and to work to
like to see the result on the docks. If however, consider catch and release create formats that maximize the social
NMFS is going to full catch and release only options as well as other billfish and economic benefits from tournament
for white marlin, I do not believe that conservation measures in future operations while minimizing impacts to
people will look at tournament videos of rulemakings, as necessary and billfish resources.
catches. The social aspect and behavior appropriate. Comment 20: NMFS received
of tournament participants will be Comment 17: The U.S. only lands less comments recommending that the
negatively impacted; there are than 1 percent of the white marlin, so Agency should implement measures to
decreasing numbers of tournament why worry about mortality? further reduce marlin mortality in other
participants who are participating in the Response: The U.S. is responsible for fisheries. Those comments include:
White Marlin Open under the catch and approximately 4.5 percent of white NMFS should implement additional
release category; Maryland has the most marlin catches in the Atlantic. Fishing regulations on the pelagic longline
to lose by prohibiting landings of white mortality rates are a concern regardless fishery, which is responsible for the
marlin. Ocean City is the white marlin of the size of the U.S. contribution majority of marlin mortality, not impose
capital of the world. Ocean City should because the current fishing mortality landings restrictions on recreational
not suffer the loss of the White Marlin rate is more than eight times the level fishermen; alternative E7 places a
Open; and, alternative E7 is that the species can sustain. As a restriction on recreational fishermen
unnecessary, will accomplish nothing steward of the fishery, it is appropriate without addressing the real issue; I am
for conservation, and would have a for the U.S. to work towards reducing opposed to alternative E7 because
significant impact on billfish and limiting both domestic and recreational landings are not the
tournaments in the mid-Atlantic areas. international fishing mortality rates. The problem; and, the billfish fishery was
Response: As stated above in the U.S. will continue its efforts to reduce supposed to be managed for the
response to Comments 13 and 14 of this billfish mortality domestically and recreational sector and NMFS has failed
section, NMFS has not selected the through ICCAT at the international to make any meaningful reductions in
catch and release alternative for Atlantic level. bycatch captured on longlines issue
white marlin in the Final Consolidated Comment 18: NMFS received since 1997.
HMS FMP. Based on overwhelming comments concerned with fishermen Response: In recent years, the Agency
public concerns for the social and shifting target species if white marlin has undertaken multiple rulemakings
intended to reduce bycatch and bycatch consider catch and release only options, It is as if NMFS is deciding to make
mortality in the pelagic longline fishery. as well as other billfish conservation them a prohibited species before the
Since implementing the 1999 FMP, measures, in future rulemakings if they ICCAT stock assessment or the ESA
NMFS has closed multiple areas to are necessary and appropriate. status review.
pelagic longline fishing, prohibited the Comment 23: NMFS received Response: NMFS believes that the
use of live bait in the Gulf of Mexico, comments inquiring about the Agency’s majority of recreational fishermen
required the use of circle hooks, and legal authority to prohibit landing of understand the value of catch and
required the possession and use of white marlin. Those comments include: release fishing for Atlantic billfish as
dehooking devices. The closed areas NMFS does not have the legal authority supported by the 75 to 99 percent
and live bait restriction were to restrict landings of Atlantic marlin to release rate in this fishery. NMFS
implemented, in part, to reduce the levels below ICCAT landings limits; I believes that catch and release fishing
bycatch of billfish in commercial fishing am opposed to alternative E7 because it significantly reduces the domestic
operations. Circle hook and release gear is contrary to giving fishermen a mortality contribution to the Atlantic-
requirements were implemented to reasonable opportunity to catch fish as wide stock. The implementation of
reduce sea turtle bycatch and bycatch required by ATCA. circle hook requirements for this sector
mortality, however, these measures Response: The ICCAT 250 marlin of the fishery is expected to significantly
likely contribute to reductions in landings limit could apply to both reduce post release mortality. The
billfish release mortality as well. species combined, or one species alone, Agency recognizes that other ICCAT
Further, as discussed in more detail if landings of the other species were to nations kill significantly more billfish
under the response to Comments 1 and be prohibited domestically. ICCAT than the U.S. In comparison to other
3, recent data and estimates on post- Recommendation 00–13, and the nations, the U.S. landings and dead
release mortality indicate that the subsequent recommendations that discards represent approximately 2.4
aggregate domestic recreational billfish modified it, did not include species and 4.5 percent of total Atlantic
mortality contribution may be equal to specific landings limits or any landings of Atlantic blue and white
or greater than the aggregate domestic references to particular landings ratios marlin, respectively. Recent information
pelagic longline billfish mortality of Atlantic blue and white marlin. The suggests that the U.S. mortality
contribution, in some years. ICCAT recommendations simply contribution for Atlantic billfish may be
Comment 21: NMFS received provided an aggregate annual landing significantly higher than previous
comments relating to the ESA listing limit that is not to be exceeded. Thus, estimates, given new studies on
review of white marlin. Those if the landings of one marlin species recreational post-release mortality. This
comments include: Would a prohibition were prohibited domestically, anglers rulemaking seeks to minimize this
on landings of Atlantic white marlin would have 250 of the other marlin mortality.
influence the potential listing of species available for landing, thereby Comment 26: The entire U.S.
Atlantic white marlin under the providing a reasonable opportunity for recreational fleet and charter/headboats
Endangered Species Act?; and, selecting anglers to fulfill their ICCAT landing are landing very few white marlin each
alternative E7 will not necessarily limit. year, approximately 227 total fish over
prevent an ESA listing of white marlin. Comment 24: Why is there a time the last three years. These landings have
Response: The listing review team frame associated with alternative E7? little or no impact on the stock, but
would consider any management The target should be MSY. The generate tremendous social and
measures in place at the time of the proposed time frame seems political. A economic benefits for coastal
Atlantic white marlin ESA listing biological threshold seems more communities particularly where
review. NMFS cannot predict the effect appropriate. tournaments are held.
of any particular management action on Response: NMFS believed that a five- Response: NMFS acknowledges the
the outcome of the anticipated ESA year time frame would have allowed for significant social and economic benefits
listing review. adequate time to gauge the potential that the recreational billfish fishery
Comment 22: The white marlin impacts of such measures on marlin provides to coastal communities.
settlement agreement between NMFS stocks and determine, at that point, if Additionally, NMFS acknowledges the
and Turtle Island Restoration network the measures achieved the objectives of limited conservation benefit that could
does not preclude further regulation of the fishery management plan. be realized from a prohibition on the
billfish catches under the Magnuson- Additionally, NMFS is required to landings of Atlantic white marlin. This
Stevens Act, but does require a consider factors beyond biology in measure was preferred in the Draft
complete reassessment of white marlin making management decisions. Consolidated HMS FMP in addition to
by the U.S. no later than 2007. However, as noted in the response to a circle hook requirement for
Response: The Agency intends to Comment 13, NMFS has not selected tournament billfish fishermen. The
complete the Atlantic white marlin ESA this alternative in the Final Agency preferred these alternatives
Listing Review on or before December Consolidated HMS FMP, but may together in an attempt to maximize
31, 2007, as provided in the settlement consider landings prohibitions for reductions in total Atlantic white marlin
agreement. NMFS has the authority to Atlantic marlins and other species in mortality resulting from the directed
impose additional restrictions on future rulemakings, as necessary and billfish fishery. However, as noted in
fisheries that interact with Atlantic appropriate. the response to Comment 13, NMFS did
white marlin, including the directed Comment 25: Recreational fishermen not select this alternative in the Final
billfish fishery; however as discussed would release all billfish if they thought Consolidated HMS FMP, but may
under the response to Comment 13, it would do any good. However, it will consider landings prohibitions for
NMFS is not prohibiting landings of not. The U.S. has always said that its Atlantic marlins and other species in
Atlantic white marlin at this time. The catch is an insignificant piece of the future rulemakings, as necessary and
implementation of circle hook Atlantic-wide take. The Draft FMP appropriate. The Agency has selected a
requirements is an important first step throws this concept out the window and non-offset circle hook requirement for
in reducing billfish mortality in the directs its regulatory muscle at a tiny HMS permitted vessels participating in
directed billfish fishery. NMFS will number of recreational billfish landings. billfish tournaments. This measure is
anticipated to substantially reduce taken by foreign fisheries, especially in this occurs, NMFS could consider
mortality without the potential adverse the directed fisheries, reducing the U.S. comments such as these in future
economic impacts associated with a blue marlin fishing mortality is unlikely rulemakings, as necessary and
prohibition on white marlin landings. to have substantial conservation gains. appropriate.
Comment 27: NMFS received Response: NMFS agrees that Comment 32: How many Atlantic
comments in support of alternative E8, improved handling and release skills white marlin are brought to the dock in
which would allow only catch and may reduce domestic post-release tournaments each year?
release recreational fishing for Atlantic mortality of billfish, and that it is Response: Between 1999 and 2004,
blue marlin. Additionally, one critical for foreign fishing nations to inclusive, a total of 144 Atlantic white
commenter added that alternative E8 reduce total Atlantic billfish mortality to marlin were reported to the Recreational
may be needed if overfishing cannot be improve the stock status of these Billfish Survey as landed in
addressed. species. NMFS did not consider the tournaments. According to RBS data,
Response: This alternative was other measures suggested in Comment landings of Atlantic white marlin in
analyzed but not preferred in the Draft 29, such as careful handling and release tournaments ranged from a low of eight
Consolidated HMS FMP or Final tools, and thus, they are beyond the in 2000, to a high of 36 in 1999, and
Consolidated HMS FMP due, in part, to scope of this rulemaking. NMFS may averaged 24 annually for the six year
potentially severe negative social and consider these measures in a future period under discussion.
economic impacts, and for other rulemaking, if necessary and Comment 33: All fishing tournament
reasons. The U.S. will continue its appropriate. NMFS also agrees that participants should be required to use
efforts to reduce billfish mortality both international cooperation is essential to circle hooks, not just billfish
domestically and at the international rebuilding Atlantic billfish populations tournament participants.
level. Additionally, the Agency may and, as such, will continue to pursue Response: NMFS believes that the
consider catch and release only options international billfish conservation current severely overfished stock status
for Atlantic blue marlin as well as other through ICCAT. of Atlantic blue and white marlin and
billfish conservation measures in future Comment 30: NMFS should not the proven ability of circle hooks to
rulemakings, as necessary and impose any new restrictions on HMS reduce post-release mortality support
appropriate. tournaments until after 2006. the selected alternative to require use of
Comment 28: NMFS received Response: To provide Atlantic billfish non-offset circle hooks in billfish
comments opposed to alternative E8, tournament operators and participants tournaments. However, NMFS believes
which would allow only catch and time to acclimate to new regulations that more data on the impacts of circle
release fishing for Atlantic blue marlin requiring the use of non-offset circle hooks on non-billfish species and other
from January 1, 2007 to December 31, hooks when natural baits and or natural fisheries should be collected and
2011. Those comments include: we are bait/artificial lure combinations are analyzed prior to proposing additional
vehemently opposed to alternative E(8), deployed from HMS permitted vessels hook and bait requirements for all HMS
catch and release only for blue marlin. that are participating in billfish tournaments. NMFS may consider
This is not a conservation issue, this is tournaments, NMFS has selected additional hook and bait requirements
a socio-economic issue and to January 1, 2007, as the effective date for for other segments of the HMS
implement alternative E8 would be these requirements. Barring unforeseen recreational fisheries in future
economic suicide; and, this alternative circumstances, no new restrictions will rulemakings, as appropriate.
exceeds the ICCAT Recommendations be imposed on HMS tournaments Comment 34: I spend $3,000.00 a year
for this species. NMFS should focus on during 2006. on the White Marlin Tournament in
compliance with ICCAT’s Comment 31: NMFS should consider Ocean City, Maryland. There are five
recommendations. The U.S. directed a limited entry system for tournaments fishermen on the boat pumping $15,000
billfish fishery should be allowed to with a specific white marlin quota. into the Ocean City, Maryland, economy
harvest its allocated quota. Tournaments should be issued a permit on our boat alone. I do not want this
Response: The Agency did not select and a quota for white marlin kills. tournament to end.
this alternative in the Draft Outside of tournaments, recreational Response: NMFS is interested in
Consolidated HMS FMP, however, it vessel owners should be required to seeing a healthy HMS tournament
remains a valid management tool have a permit and to abide by a catch- industry continue operations and
available to NMFS if warranted by stock and-release only policy. This would continue to provide benefits to the
status or other factors. NMFS selected allow for the continuation of HMS nation. The final management measures
an alternative that will fully implement tournaments, which provide the largest regarding Atlantic billfish,
U.S. international obligations contained economic benefits. It would also implementation of non-offset circle
in ICCAT Recommendation 00–13 and facilitate more accurate counting of hook requirements under certain
subsequent amendments. Additionally, marlin, and provide some fish for conditions in billfish tournaments, and
the Agency has selected other domestic biologists to conduct scientific research. the ICCAT recreational marlin
measures in the Final Consolidated Response: NMFS appreciates the management measures, have been
HMS FMP to reduce post-release suggestions submitted to the Agency crafted in a way to minimize and
mortality of billfish stocks. regarding potential additional mitigate potential adverse socio-
Comment 29: By itself, alternative E8, tournament regulations and other economic impacts and are not expected
which would allow only catch and management suggestions for the to have significant impacts on billfish
release fishing for Atlantic blue marlin directed billfish fishery, and asks tournaments. Please refer to Chapter 4 of
from January 1, 2007 to December 31, commenters to continue to submit the Final Consolidated HMS FMP for
2011, will not substantially reduce blue innovative ideas to improve billfish additional detail regarding the estimated
marlin fishing mortality unless 100 management. As discussed above, impacts of the selected alternatives.
percent circle hook use, careful ICCAT has conducted a marlin stock Comment 35: NMFS received several
handling/release tools, procedures, and assessment and may reconsider comments, including one from the Gulf
training are also required. Even then, management measures for billfish at its of Mexico Fishery Management Council,
unless such responsible actions are annual meeting in November 2007. If in favor of increasing the minimum size
limits for white and/or blue marlin, limit is approached in the future and comply with the ICCAT landings limit.
including: even a limited benefit is reducing post release mortality of NMFS also is mandating the use of non-
worth implementing; people interested billfish caught in tournaments. The offset circle hooks in billfish
in a smaller size limit are trying to make Agency may consider permanent tournaments by HMS anglers when
loopholes so they can catch and keep modifications to the minimum size in deploying natural baits to reduce post
smaller fish; NMFS should increase the the future as necessary to ensure hooking mortality of released fish.
size limit of blue marlin because the compliance with international Furthermore, because the majority of
Puerto Rico Game fish association has obligations and facilitate rebuilding of billfish are caught and released and
only taken 15 marlin all year in blue and white marlin stocks. catch rates are low (1.03 and 1.13 white
tournaments; increasing the size by Comment 36: NMFS received and blue marlin per 100 hours angling,
approximately 40 percent, we would not numerous comments opposing the respectively), conservation benefits of
have to apply the 250 fish cap; I support implementation of a minimum size for increasing the minimum size may be
E4(b), increasing the minimum size of white and/or blue marlin as described minimal.
blue marlin because length and weight in Alternative E4 (a), increase the Comment 37: NMFS received
are correlated for blue marlin; increase minimum legal size for Atlantic white comments both opposing and
the minimum size for blue marlin to 105 marlin to a specific size between 68 - 71 supporting alternatives E4(a) and E4(b)
inches LJFL because most tournaments inches LJFL and Alternative E4 (b), on the basis that a larger size limit
have a minimum weight of 400 pounds; increase the minimum size of blue would result in fishermen targeting
increasing the minimum size for blue marlin to a specific size between 103 - larger, more fecund females and that
marlin would reduce the number of 106 inches LJFL, including: many NMFS should consider a slot limit to
legal fish landed by one third; there tournaments already have a larger protect these larger, more fecund,
should be at least a 106 inch minimum minimum size than what NMFS has marlin.
size limit to allow them to live for three implemented (i.e., 110 inches or 400 lb), Response: Generally speaking, the
more years and at least two years of therefore, no benefits will be realized likelihood of landing a more fecund
spawning; and, I support a minimum from increasing minimum sizes; NMFS female may increase if NMFS
size of 104 inches for blue marlin. had already established minimum size implemented a larger minimum legal
Response: The Agency is not limits for white and blue marlin and size for blue marlin. For white marlin,
increasing minimum sizes of Atlantic these limits should not be increased; the correlation between length and age
blue or white marlin at this time for because of the differences in growth or fecundity is less certain as current
several reasons. Only limited patterns between white and blue marlin, information indicate that white marlin
conservation benefits might be attained an increased size limit for white marlin may first put on length, and then
by increasing the minimum sizes for would be ineffective because these fish weight. The fishery is generally
marlin because relatively few blue and grow to size and then put on additional opportunistic in nature, with a low
white marlin are landed on an annual weight and not necessarily length; for CPUE, and with little ability for
basis. In 2004, 118 blue marlin and 18 white marlin weight and length are not fishermen to ‘‘target’’ a large or small
white marlin were reported to ICCAT, closely correlated for fish above 62 billfish. Further, the recreational billfish
comprised mainly of tournament inches LJFL; there is no rationale for fishery is an overwhelmingly catch and
landings, but also including North increasing minimum sizes, because release fishery. As such, while a larger
Carolina and Maryland catch card requiring circle hooks will accomplish legal minimum size may result in larger
landings, and non-tournament landings the same thing; and, why implement fish being landed, it is unlikely that
reported to HMS. Since the majority of increased size limits to avoid reaching anglers could successfully ‘‘target’’
landings occur in tournaments and the 250 mark, when the existing larger billfish. NMFS appreciates the
many tournaments already have a regulations seem to work? suggestion of analyzing a slot limit, and
minimum size greater than the current Response: NMFS did not select an encourages anglers to continue to
minimum size, increasing the minimum increased minimum size for white or submit suggestions to the Agency. As
size may not have any significant blue marlin at this time, however, discussed in the response to comment
ecological benefits. The Agency has also NMFS may consider modifications to 35 above, NMFS did not select an
received information that white marlin minimum sizes in the future, as alternative to change the minimum size
might not display a consistent length- necessary. NMFS is unaware of the but may reconsider minimum size
weight relationship, meaning that very exact number of billfish tournaments changes, including slot limits, in the
few of these fish would even attain the that currently require a minimum size future.
minimum size if it were increased. greater than the current Federal Comment 38: NMFS received a
The United States is currently well regulations, however, they are comment asking what data were used to
below the 250 fish limit imposed by numerous. Since this is where the determine the billfish size limits.
ICCAT and, therefore, does not need to majority of reported landings occur, Response: Size distributions from
reduce landings to comply with increasing the minimum size may not Atlantic billfish tournaments held from
international obligations at this time. result in significant positive ecological 1995–1997 were used to analyze
Lastly, other management measures benefits. In 2004, all but 3 of the 149 minimum size alternatives contained in
selected in this action (mandatory use of billfish reported to ICCAT were landed Amendment 1 to the Billfish FMP
circle hooks when using natural bait by in tournaments. The United States has (1999), which resulted in the current
HMS permit holders in tournaments been well under its ICCAT allocated minimum legal sizes for Atlantic
that have a billfish prize category and quota of 250 billfish/year every year billfish. Minimum size ranges analyzed
implementation of ICCAT (except 2002), and the measures in this for this rulemaking were based on RBS
recommendations that establish an in- final rule would increase the minimum landings of white and blue marlin in
season adjustment framework to size for Atlantic white and blue marlin tournaments between 1999–2004.
increase minimum sizes or catch and if there were a possibility of Comment 39: NMFS received several
release, if necessary) should result in approaching the landings limit in the comments in support of Alternative E5
the desired conservation benefits by future, thereby mitigating the need to (bag limit of one billfish/vessel/day),
reducing landings if the ICCAT landings permanently increase minimum sizes to including: the United States is already
under such a limited quota for white may produce and agrees that a bag limit lures are deployed in billfish
and blue marlin (250 fish/year alone would not reduce post-release tournaments can be adequately enforced
combined for both species) that a bag mortality. NMFS selected a circle hook by NMFS Office of Law Enforcement.
limit is necessary; a bag limit might alternative in the Final Consolidated NMFS further believes that, given the
result in some high grading, but it HMS FMP that is expected to reduce vested financial interests of billfish
should not be much of a problem; and, post-release mortality of Atlantic tournament participants in ensuring that
if the United States recreational sector is billfish. all tournament participants compete
limited to 250 blue marlin and white under the same rules and conditions,
iii. Gears and Gear Restrictions
marlin, it is inappropriate to let one boat tournament circle hook requirements
come back with more than a single fish Comment 41: NMFS received will be significantly self-enforced. The
on any given day. comments in support of non-preferred Atlantic White Marlin ESA Listing
Response: NMFS recognizes the alternative E2, which would require the Review Panel would take into
concerns of anglers regarding allocation use of circle hooks in all HMS consideration the impacts of all
of fish, particularly given the strict recreational fisheries when using regulations in effect, including circle
marlin landings limits placed upon the natural bait, including: only a fraction of hook requirements, when making its
United States. As discussed in Chapter the offshore recreational effort occurs in recommendations. NMFS cannot predict
4 of the Final Consolidated HMS FMP, tournaments so the conservation the outcome of these deliberations or
the United States is limited to 250 white benefits would be larger if circle hooks the direct impact that any particular
and blue marlin, combined, on an were required in all offshore fisheries. regulation may have on the outcome of
annual basis, per ICCAT This alternative would facilitate such deliberations. Data indicate that
Recommendation 00–13. Since 2001, enforcement by requiring that all HMS the domestic directed fishery for
the United States has only exceeded its fishermen use circle hooks; NMFS Atlantic white marlin is responsible for
annual 250 fish limit one time (2002), should require circle hooks, careful a significant proportion of total
and that was because of a modification handling/release tools and training for domestic white marlin mortality, and
to the accounting methodology for all HMS hook and line fisheries that may, in some years, exceed the level of
compliance with ICCAT. NMFS has interact with white marlin. This may be mortality inflicted by the domestic
selected the alternative to implement the only way for NMFS to prevent an pelagic longline fleet. NMFS also agrees
ICCAT Recommendation 00–13 in the ESA listing for white marlin. It cannot that the directed domestic fishery for
Final Consolidated HMS FMP. At this be ignored that the directed recreational Atlantic white marlin and the bycatch of
time, there is little evidence suggesting fishery is likely the majority of domestic this species in other domestic fisheries
that individual anglers are landing white marlin mortality, which is a represents only a small portion of total
excessive numbers of marlin and minute percent. Unfortunately, even Atlantic-wide mortality, on both an
potentially depriving other anglers of such a sacrifice may not be successful, individual and a collective basis. NMFS
the opportunity to land a marlin. No unless adopted by other foreign also agrees that the recovery of this
multiple marlin trips have been fisheries, especially directed fisheries depleted fishery is dependant upon the
reported to the Atlantic billfish and that interact with white marlin. Circle cooperation of the international
swordfish non-tournament landings hooks are needed for all HMS fisheries, community. To this end, the U.S.
system. However, NMFS may consider not just in tournaments. If an HMS continues to pursue marlin conservation
implementation of a bag limit in the fishery interacts with billfish, then it at the international level through
future as necessary and appropriate. needs to use circle hooks. ICCAT.
Comment 40: NMFS received several Response: NMFS agrees that Atlantic Comment 42: NMFS received
comments objecting to alternative E5 billfish tournaments represent a subset conditional support for alternative E2,
(bag limit of one billfish/vessel/trip) for of total fishing effort targeting Atlantic Effective January 1, 2007, limit all
varied reasons, including: it would billfish and that there would be a greater participants in Atlantic HMS
encourage the culling of fish; landing a conservation gain if circle hooks were recreational fisheries to using only non-
few fish is not the issue; and, a bag limit required in all offshore recreational offset circle hooks when using natural
will not reduce post-release mortality of fisheries. NMFS is interested in all baits or natural bait/artificial lure
billfish unless careful handling and potential means of further reducing the combinations, including; I support the
release guidelines are followed. post-release mortality of all HMS. use of circle hooks with natural baits in
Response: As discussed in the However, NMFS prefers to collect and all HMS fisheries, only if no J-hooks are
response to Comment 39, there is little evaluate additional data regarding the allowed on board the vessel.
evidence, at this time, that individual impacts of circle hooks on non-billfish Response: Public comment during the
anglers are landing excessive numbers species and fisheries prior to mandating scoping phase of this rulemaking was
of marlin on individual trips and circle hooks for all HMS fisheries. Other nearly unanimous on the need to allow
potentially depriving other anglers of possible methods of reducing post- the use of J-hooks with artificial lures
the opportunity to land an Atlantic release mortality of all HMS could when fishing for Atlantic blue marlin
marlin. Further, as described in the include the required use of careful given the feeding behaviors of this
response to Comment 39, overall handling and release guidelines, release species. Additionally, in its analysis of
landings of Atlantic marlin by U.S. equipment, and training. NMFS may circle hook requirements, NMFS found
recreational fishermen are low and well consider the feasibility of additional that the post-release mortality rate of
below the U.S. marlin landing limit. circle hook requirements and other Atlantic blue marlin caught
This is due, in large part, to the anglers requirements in the future, as suggested recreationally on J-hooks appeared to be
who choose not to land marlin that are by the commenter. NMFS also agrees comparable to post-release mortality
legally available for landing. NMFS is that uniform fishery-wide circle hook rates of Atlantic white marlin caught
always concerned about the potential requirements will likely facilitate recreationally on circle hooks. As such,
for increases in culling and discards enforcement. However, NMFS believes this rule, which requires the use of non-
which may result from regulation. that the requirement to use circle hooks offset circle hooks by permitted HMS
NMFS acknowledges the limited by permitted HMS fishermen when fishermen when natural bait or natural
conservation benefit that a bag limit natural bait and natural bait/artificial bait/artificial lures are deployed in
billfish tournaments, but allows J-hooks of assumptions that would not support directors to add 5 extra points to anglers
to be used with artificial lures, will the use of circle hooks. Where the ‘‘23 who used circle hooks to catch their
likely reduce mortality in the directed percent overall’’ figure comes from is fish; the number of fish saved will be
billfish fishery and provide a significant not discoverable in the text. It is one of ten times greater with the voluntary use
and appropriate conservation benefit. those derived from assumptions that are of circle hooks rather than mandatory
Comment 43: NMFS received not spelled out. The ‘‘65.7 percent’’ use, because the public does not like to
comments opposing Alternative E2, figure is right from the Horodysky and be forced into doing things; individual
including: I do not support alternative Graves study which, as argued, is tournaments should be allowed to
E2; I am concerned about requiring insufficient to support any of the determine which type of hook is most
circle hooks in all HMS fisheries proposals. appropriate for their own needs; we
because dolphin, wahoo, king mackerel, Response: The significant potential agree with NMFS that promoting circle
and inshore fisheries could be impacted; reductions in post-release mortality of hook use in tournaments will result in
how would NMFS determine who is in recreationally caught Atlantic billfish non-tournament anglers using them
the HMS fishery?; I strongly oppose that are anticipated to be achieved also, however it should not be required
requiring the use of circle hooks in all through the shift from J-hooks to non- by regulation. Anglers will ignore the
HMS fisheries because circle hooks do offset circle hooks in the directed circle hook requirement at tournaments
not work on swordfish and the catch fishery provide ample support for and will choose the best tackle to win.
rate goes down; and there may be a implementing these measures. Reducing The blue marlin fishery is a mixed
problem in terms of enforcement with the post-release mortality of Atlantic fishery and circle hooks do not work
making circle hooks mandatory in all white marlin by two-thirds would be a well on other tournament species such
HMS fisheries (alternative E2), but it landmark achievement. The shift to
as wahoo; enforcing circle hook
could work in Atlantic billfish circle hooks in the directed Atlantic
requirements will be difficult or
tournaments (preferred alternative E3). billfish fishery is the most effective
Response: NMFS acknowledges that impossible, especially at tournaments;
single management tool known to the
requiring circle hooks in all HMS circle hooks need to be phased in
Agency at this time to control post-
fisheries could affect secondary through angler education, because they
release mortality, and has the added
fisheries, including dolphin, wahoo, are not enforceable at this time with no
benefit of having minimal impacts on
king mackerel, and other inshore proposed specifications; NMFS should
the fishery. NMFS has relied on
fisheries. As previously acknowledged, educate anglers on the use and benefits
publicly available peer-reviewed
NMFS prefers to collect additional data scientific papers and available of circle hooks. NMFS needs to provide
on the impacts of fishery-wide circle recreational data sets in developing its specifications on circle hooks (offset,
hook requirements. Such data collection analyses. The assumptions made to circularity, shank length, size, gap, etc.)
would include HMS fisheries and may support the use of circle hooks are before requiring them; I do not want
also include some non-HMS species and articulated in Chapter 4 of the Final NMFS to advocate one hook
fisheries. The NED circle hook study Consolidated HMS FMP. The reference manufacturer over another; NMFS needs
indicated that deployment of circle to 23 percent overall reduction written specifications that are clear to
hooks in the commercial pelagic represents another statistical everyone in order to encourage
longline fishery can result in a decrease perspective on the anticipated compliance; circle hooks could
in the number of swordfish caught reduction. It represents the change in potentially have huge negative
under some oceanographic conditions. absolute terms of reducing the estimated economic impacts on tournaments.
However, NMFS has only limited data post-release mortality of Atlantic white They may decrease anglers’ ability to
on the impact of circle hooks in the marlin from 35 percent overall on J- catch non-billfish species that are
recreational swordfish fishery. With hooks to approximately 12 percent landed for food or tournament winnings
regard to enforcement, NMFS believes overall on circle hooks (35 percent ¥ 12 and as such may decrease willingness to
that given the vested financial interests percent = 23 percent). The 65.7 percent participate in tournaments. This
of billfish tournament participants in figure represents the relative decrease in commenter also noted that the transition
ensuring that all tournament post-release mortality between J-hook to circle hooks may require anglers to
participants compete under the same and circle hook caught Atlantic white invest between $15,000 and $20,000 in
rules and conditions, tournament circle marlin (23 percent/35 percent = 65.7 the way they fish tournaments; potential
hook requirements will be significantly percent). adverse economic impacts of
self-enforced. Comment 45: NMFS received a implementing circle hooks may
Comment 44: NMFS received number of comments opposing outweigh the conservation benefits
comments on the adequacy of data and preferred alternative E3, which would derived from anticipated decreases in
assumptions made in support of non- require the use of non-offset circle post-release mortality and as such other
preferred alternative E2, which would hooks by HMS permitted fishermen areas of conservation should be
require all HMS fishermen to use circle participating in billfish tournaments explored; anglers need to use J-hooks
hooks when using natural bait and when using natural baits, including: we with artificial lures because of the way
preferred alternative E3, which would support the voluntary use of circle marlin feed; circle hooks do not work
require the use of non-offset circle hooks and oppose mandating use of well for species that are trolled for at
hooks in billfish tournaments when circle hooks in tournaments when using higher speeds; fish do not get gut
using natural bait, including: NMFS natural baits; if NMFS lets the hooked with J-hooks and artificial bait.
cannot justify alternatives E2 or recreational and charter/headboat fleet Anglers need natural bait with circle
alternative E3. We do not believe that implement circle hooks on a voluntary hooks because the use of circle hooks
there is data to support the preferred basis, there will be 90 percent or better for marlin fishing with lures will not
alternative to require circle hooks in compliance at using circle hooks in a work. Marlins smack the live bait with
tournaments; and, the assumptions year or two; all south Florida circle hooks and will get hooked in the
made to support the use of circle hooks tournaments have already voluntarily mouth or bill so there is very little
are not specified in the text and leads converted to circle hooks because they chance of gut hooking anything; the best
one to believe that there is another set work, NMFS should ask tournament way to catch them (blue marlin) is to
slow troll natural bait with no drop there are no standard industry hook by anglers fishing from Atlantic HMS
back. Circle hooks may not work specifications, NMFS cannot provide permitted vessels participating in
without a drop back; and, I oppose detailed hook specifications for each Atlantic billfish tournaments when
Alternative E3 because it falls short of size circle hook that could be used in deploying natural bait or natural bait/
what is needed. the recreational billfish fishery at this artificial lure combinations.
Response: NMFS disagrees that there time. NMFS is continuing to work on Comment 47: NMFS received a
will be significantly greater use of circle various definitions of circle hooks that number of comments in support of
hooks by anglers in the Atlantic billfish could be applied in future rulemakings. preferred alternative E3, Effective
fishery if circle hook use remains Further, to ease concerns of anglers and January 1, 2007, limit all Atlantic
voluntary, as opposed to being required simplify hook choice, NMFS is billfish tournament participants to using
under certain circumstances. Circle considering working with hook only non-offset circle hooks when using
hook use has always been voluntary, manufacturers to ensure that all hooks natural or natural bait/artificial lure
and yet significant portions of the marketed as circle hooks are true circle combinations, including: I support
fishery continue to use J-hooks. Further, hooks. NMFS disagrees that alternative E3, which would require
NMFS has been actively encouraging implementation of circle hook circle hooks in Atlantic billfish
the use of circle hooks in HMS Fisheries requirements will cause large adverse tournaments; the results of recent circle
since 1999. NMFS advocated circle economic impacts. NMFS has not seen hook studies are very compelling;
hook use through the placement of evidence that participation in the NMFS should make a tough decision
articles on circle hooks, held fishery will decrease as a result of circle and implement circle hooks because
discussions with industry leaders to hook use. Circle hooks have been shown they work; circle hooks can help with
encourage their use and to educate to increase catch rates of some billfish catch and release by reducing post-
anglers on their benefits, recommended and are, on average, slightly less release mortality; NMFS must reduce
their use during public hearings and expensive than J-hooks. Many mortality on marlin and should require
elsewhere, and encouraged circle hook commenters suggested that if circle circle hooks; limiting tournaments to
use in tournaments by providing hook use were left voluntary that circle hooks should reduce post-release
monetary incentives to anglers for their compliance rates will be very high. mortality and provide additional
use. While there has been some progress NMFS agrees that circle hooks may
conservation to billfish in the
in sectors of the fishery, anecdotal affect the catches of some non-HMS
recreational fishery. Mandatory use is
evidence suggests that substantial species, but cannot predict whether
portions of the fishery continue using J- viable in the tournament setting.
these catches may increase or decrease.
hooks as the standard hook. For several Outside of tournaments, NMFS needs an
However, circle hooks will only be
reasons, NMFS has selected the aggressive education program to
required on HMS permitted vessels
alternative to require non-offset circle promote the use of circle hooks; it is
participating in billfish tournaments
hooks to be used by anglers aboard HMS easy to get a circle hook back, and circle
when natural baits or natural bait/
permitted vessels participating in hooks have the benefit of not leaving
artificial lure combinations are
billfish tournaments when deploying any gear on the fish; circle hooks work,
deployed. Based on public comment
natural baits. There are substantial during scoping and an examination of save fish, and result in less hooking
conservation benefits associated with post-release mortality data of blue trauma; I support the use of circle
the use of circle hooks, primarily marlin caught on J-hooks, NMFS will hooks, but they may not work with
reduced post-hooking mortality. This is allow anglers on HMS permitted vessels combination baits; our club adopted the
especially important because recent in billfish tournaments to continue to use of circle hooks exclusively for all
information suggests that the post- use J-hooks with artificial lures. NMFS our tournaments, and we generally have
release mortality rate of Atlantic white remains convinced that implementing a short ten to 15 minute release time on
marlin caught recreationally on J-hooks non-offset circle hook requirements in sailfish and white marlin, which
is substantially higher than previous Atlantic billfish tournaments when minimizes stress on the animal; we
estimates. In addition, there are data natural baits or natural bait/artificial support alternative E3, non-offset circle
indicating that the mortality lures are deployed from permitted HMS hooks with dead or live natural baits in
contribution of the recreational vessels will be an important and tournaments, but a circle hook needs to
community on Atlantic white marlin productive first step that should reduce be clearly defined; circle hooks should
may equal or exceed that of the pelagic mortality in the U.S. directed billfish be mandatory for billfish tournaments; I
longline fishery in some years, and fishery. support the mandatory use of circle
circle hook requirements are already in Comment 46: I am concerned that hooks in billfish tournaments because it
place for that fishery. alternative E3 specifies circle hooks for is enforceable. Tournament directors
As discussed in the response to ‘‘all Atlantic billfish tournament can give out hooks or inspect them;
Comment 41 regarding enforcement of participants’’ rather than ‘‘HMS- Tournaments are a good place to start
circle hook use in tournaments, NMFS permitted vessels in all Atlantic billfish implementing circle hooks; there is an
believes that given the vested financial tournaments.’’ international movement to use circle
interests of billfish tournament Response: NMFS agrees. NMFS has hooks; the U.S. needs to put circle hook
participants in ensuring that all made a technical clarification to the requirements on paper to show ICCAT
tournament participants compete fairly wording of the alternative to correct any our commitment and credibility, rather
under the same rules and conditions, misperceptions. NMFS did not intend than doing this voluntarily; the
tournament circle hook requirements that the regulations contained in 50 CFR international focus needs to be on
would be significantly self-enforced. A part 635 would apply to fisheries under improving the post-release mortality of
general definition of ‘‘circle hook’’ is the jurisdiction of the regional fishery Atlantic billfish and requiring circle
included in the current Federal management councils. NMFS analyzed hooks in U.S. fisheries will help with
regulations governing Atlantic HMS, this alternative from the perspective of this effort; and, the recreational sector
and NMFS understands the desire of applying circle hook requirements only claims they are not ready for circle
tournament operators for additional to HMS-permitted vessels. To clarify, hooks, but the commercial sector was
circle hook specifications. However, as NMFS will require circle hook use only forced to move to circle hooks.
Anything that can be done to reduce commercial fishing sector is subject to a mandatory protected resources
mortality is good. The commercial number of restrictions to reduce bycatch identification and release and
fishing sector has stepped up to the and bycatch mortality. However, with disentanglement workshops for longline
plate, so the recreational community regard to the hook requirements and gillnet vessel owners and operators.
should do the same. analyzed in this rulemaking, NMFS However, to the extent possible, these
Response: NMFS agrees with believes that the data indicate that circle workshops will be open to other
comments suggesting that implementing hooks can reduce post-release mortality interested parties, including recreational
circle hook requirements in in the recreational billfish fishery. fishery participants. As previously
tournaments will reduce post-release Comment 48: NMFS received a discussed, NMFS is unable to determine
mortality of billfish caught in number of comments conditionally what percentage of billfish trips deploy
tournaments, and should help reduce supporting implementation of circle circle hooks. However, the Agency
the overall fishing mortality rate of hooks in billfish fisheries, including: the believes that the data clearly
Atlantic marlins. Recent data indicate use of circle hooks should be voluntary demonstrate significant conservation
that switching to circle hooks could until NMFS develops a specification on benefits can be derived from the use of
reduce post-release mortality rates for the off-set and shank length; we support circle hooks in portions of the
individual fish by approximately two- alternative E3, circle hooks in recreational billfish fishery.
thirds. NMFS also agrees with tournaments, provided it includes Comment 49: NMFS received
comments indicating the mandatory provisions to conduct cooperative comments regarding the timing of
scientifically valid research, determine implementing possible circle hook
circle hook use in tournaments will be
and specify minimum design requirements suggesting the need for a
viable and enforceable for the reasons
specifications for circle hooks, require short phase-in of circle hooks into
discussed in the response to Comment
the handling and release equipment be tournaments and the recreational fishery
41. NMFS also concurs with the need to
on board, and allow for voluntary and advance notice of impending circle
continue educational efforts to better
participation in handling and release hook regulations to allow for changes in
educate anglers in the use and benefits
workshops. The current definition for a the rules and advertising, and to inform
of circle hooks, as noted by some
circle hook is not adequate. Rather, tournament participants of potential
commenters, and encourages anglers to
NMFS needs to outline minimal design circle hook requirements. Commenters
minimize fight times, release fish
specifications as was done in the NED also suggested that educational efforts
quickly, and to release fish in a manner experimental design; and, if voluntary should be increased to promote and
that maximizes the probability of conversion to circle hooks is low, then enhance the growing recreational
survival to further minimize billfish I would support their mandatory use. awareness, and use, of circle hooks.
mortality. NMFS agrees with Response: As discussed fully in Response: NMFS surveyed a number
commenters who suggest that there is Chapter 4 of the Final Consolidated of tournament operators in the Atlantic,
growing international momentum to use HMS FMP and in the response to Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean to better
circle hooks in various fisheries. Comment 45 above, NMFS believes it is understand various aspects of
However, NMFS sees a need for appropriate to require circle hooks for tournament operations. NMFS
continuing pressure on the international HMS permitted vessels when determined that a delayed date of
community to implement circle hook participating in Atlantic billfish effectiveness of between four and six
use more rapidly. As discussed in the tournaments at this time, despite a lack months would likely provide adequate
response to Comment 46, a general of detailed circle hook specifications. time for tournament operators and
definition of circle hooks is included in NMFS is continuing to develop more participants to adjust tournament rules,
the current Federal regulations detailed circle hook specifications, but formats, and advertising, as necessary,
governing Atlantic HMS, and NMFS believes that the conservation benefits as well as to notify anglers of changes,
understands the desire of anglers and derived from circle hook requirements and allow anglers to adjust fishing
tournament operators for additional at this time outweigh any possible practices and take other steps, as
circle hook specifications. However, an adverse impacts that may result from a appropriate, to minimize any potential
index of detailed hook specifications for lack of detailed circle hook adverse impacts stemming from selected
each size of circle hook that could be specifications. NMFS has not circle hook requirements. As such,
used in the recreational billfish fishery considered or proposed any restrictions given the publication of this Final Rule
is not available at this time. NMFS is on scientific research in the Final in September 2006, the effective date for
working on definitions of circle hooks Consolidated HMS FMP. Interested the selected circle hook alternative is
that could be applied in future parties may conduct scientific research January 1, 2007. This effective date is
rulemakings. Further, to ease concerns as appropriate under the selected circle consistent with the effective date
of anglers and simplify hook choice, hook alternative. Should the design of proposed for preferred alternative E3 as
NMFS is considering working with hook such scientific research call for utilizing contained in the Draft Consolidated
manufacturers to ensure that all hooks gears or undertaking activities HMS FMP. NMFS has also had a circle
marketed as circle hooks are true circle prohibited by regulation, interested hook public education program in place
hooks. Implementing circle hook parties may apply for either an for a number of years to educate anglers
requirements in portions of the Exempted Fishing Permit or Scientific and encourage the use of circle hooks in
domestic recreational billfish fishery Research Permit, as appropriate. recreational fisheries.
will demonstrate to the international Requiring handling and release Comment 50: Why would the
community the conservation benefits of equipment and workshops for the recreational fishery not be allowed to
these hooks, and the commitment of the recreational sector is beyond the scope have offset hooks, while the PLL fishery
U.S. to billfish conservation. Improving of this rulemaking, but may be can have a 10 percent offset?
post-release mortality in both the considered in a future rulemaking, if Response: Pelagic longline circle hook
commercial and recreational fisheries is appropriate. NMFS has selected an and bait requirements were developed
a critical component of halting the alternative requiring mandatory shark to specifically address bycatch and
current decline of Atlantic marlin identification workshops for federally bycatch mortality of Atlantic sea turtles,
populations. NMFS agrees that the permitted shark dealers, as well as while the selected circle hook
requirements for Atlantic HMS HMS tournament directors to work on a impacts are projected to occur (August
permitted fishermen participating in protocol to get anglers to switch to circle 22), based upon the assumptions
Atlantic billfish tournaments are hooks. described in Chapter 4 of the Final
intended to reduce post-release Response: NMFS appreciates the Consolidated HMS FMP.
mortality of Atlantic billfish. In other thoughtful and creative suggestions
made by commenters to address billfish iv. Circle Hooks and/or Post-Release
words, they were developed to address
issues. Although these ideas were not Mortality Data
different issues. The pelagic longline
fishery may only possess circle hooks specifically considered in the Draft Comment 54: NMFS received several
offset up to 10 degrees if they are 18/0 Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS is comments on the adequacy of some of
or larger in size. The offset was investigating their potential and may the studies cited in development of the
determined to be necessary to allow the consider them in a future rulemaking if Draft Consolidated HMS FMP,
use of large baits (e.g. whole Atlantic appropriate. including: the Horodysky and Graves
mackerel), which can shield the hook. Comment 53: NMFS received a study is flawed because it is based on
The recreational billfish fishery number of questions specific to a sample size of only 40 fish and
typically uses significantly smaller tournament landings of billfish in South because they landed the fish in 30 - 40
hooks (sizes 8/0 and 9/0), which, if Carolina, including: how many billfish minutes which is unreasonable. Most
offset, may diminish the conservation are caught annually in South Carolina anglers will land their fish much more
benefit of circle hook requirements by tournaments? What is the number quickly in 5 - 10 minutes thus reducing
resulting in higher rates of deep hooking harvested for weigh-in versus the stress on the fish and increasing
and soft tissue damage to vital organs. number released? What is the estimated survival rates; the Horodysky and
Comment 51: NMFS received mortality for those released? What is the Graves study concludes that there is a
comments on the potential applicability financial gain to the state? 35 percent greater likelihood that a
of circle hook requirements of preferred Response: An examination of the white marlin will survive release if
alternative E3, which would require Recreational Billfish Survey (RBS), taken on a circle hook, rather than a J-
billfish tournament participants to use which records tournament landings, hook. Other factors resulting in post-
non-offset circle hooks when deploying indicates that an average of four Atlantic release mortality must come into play;
natural baits, including: would billfish (blue marlin, white marlin, and e.g., no one would expect fish fought for
participants in tournaments that offer sailfish) were landed in South Carolina 83 minutes ((DR02–04) or 46 minutes
prizes for both billfish and non-HMS in tournaments annually for the period (VZ03–11)) to survive and it has nothing
species be required to use circle hooks 1999 - 2004, inclusive. A high of seven to do with the type of hook used. Yet,
for the non-HMS species; and would the blue marlin were landed in tournaments the study takes into consideration
circle hook requirement apply to vessels in South Carolina in 1999, and a low of nothing but the type of hook used to
fishing in U.S. waters, or to all U.S. one blue marlin was landed in 2002. In conclude that hook type alone results in
flagged vessels everywhere? total, for the period 1999 - 2004, 25 a lower mortality rate; one of the circle
Response: Anglers aboard HMS billfish were retained and 73 were hook studies cited in the DEIS is
permitted vessels, or vessels that are released in tournaments, as reported problematic because it was conducted
required to be permitted, and are through the RBS. According to RBS in the Pacific Ocean (Guatemala), the
participating in Atlantic billfish data, between seven and eight (7.6) vessel’s captains were required to use
tournaments will be required to use tournaments per year were conducted in offset circle hooks rather than non-offset
non-offset circle hooks when deploying South Carolina. Rounding-up to an circle hooks, the methods do not
natural baits and natural bait/artificial estimate of eight tournaments per year, represent how fishermen fish, and the
lure combinations. However, HMS and applying an average value of study does not contain a comparison of
permitted vessels participating in $1,375,481 per tournament, the circle hooks versus J-hooks.
Atlantic billfish tournaments will be estimated impact of tournaments to Response: NMFS appreciates the
able to deploy J-hooks on artificial lures. coastal South Carolina equates to concerns expressed over the methods
Circle hooks will be required for U.S. $11,003,848. and/or validity of the studies cited in
flagged vessels possessing an HMS The commenter also indirectly the Draft and Final Consolidated HMS
permit and participating in an Atlantic suggested that the alternatives selected FMP. Nevertheless, the studies cited in
billfish tournament regardless of where to address billfish mortality would Final Consolidated HMS FMP have been
that vessel is fishing. result in the cancellation of South peer-reviewed and constitute the best
Comment 52: NMFS received a Carolina’s tournaments resulting in a available science regarding the topics
number of comments and suggestions estimated loss of $11 million dollars to under discussion. NMFS would
on potential gear and bait restrictions or the state. NMFS does not agree with this appreciate additional relevant peer-
policy programs beyond those analyzed suggestion. Circle hook requirements are reviewed studies on these subjects if the
in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, not expected to result in decreased commenter is aware of any such studies
including: there should be no live bait tournament participation, given the high because the Agency is always searching
fishing; prohibit the use of ‘‘live bait’’ in catch and release rate practiced by for, and required to utilize, the best
all HMS J-style hook fisheries and areas billfish anglers, the fact that all U.S. available scientific information for
known to have billfish interactions; the Atlantic billfish tournament anglers will fishery management actions.
use of kites and offset circle hooks may have to abide by the same circle hook Comment 55: NMFS received a
be more damaging than J-hooks; NMFS requirements, the low number of number of comments that recommended
should allow only one hook per lure to marlins that are annually landed in research and data collections, or asked
reduce foul hooking and injuries to the South Carolina, and because marlin are about the availability of certain data,
fish and anglers; NMFS should available for landing. South Carolina including: we recommend research to
implement minimum line test tournaments are not likely to be affected determine the impacts of circle hooks
requirements during the season or in by the 250 fish marlin landing limit on catch rates, not only of billfish, but
tournaments; NMFS should create a either, primarily because all South other species such as dolphin, wahoo,
buyback program for J-hooks; and, it Carolina tournaments occur prior to the and tuna; NMFS should conduct studies
would be useful to convene a summit of date at which any potential estimated on the post-release mortality of sailfish
with circle versus J-hooks in the definition of ‘‘circle hook’’ in 50 CFR in 2002 to a low of 23 in 2003. The
Atlantic Ocean. Do not rely on studies 635.2 reads: ‘‘A circle hook means a number of Atlantic white marlin
from the Pacific Ocean because the fishing hook originally designed and reported to NMFS via the Recreational
sailfish are different between the manufactured so that the point of the Billfish Survey has remained relatively
oceans; more data from pop-up satellite hook is turned perpendicularly back stable over the same period. However,
(PSAT) tags and angler experience is toward the shank to form a generally the release rate of live Atlantic white
needed to provide a foundation for any circular or oval shape.’’ NMFS is marlin in the recreational fishery has
major change in regulations pertaining working on definitions for circle hooks. also remained stable. In the face of
to marlins; has there been any research At this time, however, detailed hook increased effort, a lack of increases in
on exhaustion mortality, e.g., fighting specifications for each size circle hook landings, when coupled with stable
fish for different times on different gear that could be used in the recreational release rates, implies decreased angler
(drop back, hook type, etc) and the billfish fishery are not available. There success. Decreased angler success could
resultant impacts on mortality?; we see are no standard industry hook be attributable to a number of factors.
big blue marlin occasionally and are specifications. As detailed in the One factor could be that the fishing
wondering about post-release mortality discussion of the selected circle hook mortality rate of Atlantic white marlin
and catch-and-release rates. Predation alternative in Chapter 4 of the Final is more than eight times higher than the
should be considered in estimating post- Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS finds population can sustain, so the stock size
release mortality; NMFS should conduct that it is appropriate at this time to is diminished. Furthermore, as
additional studies to identify more require the use of non-offset circle discussed in Chapter 4 of the Final
effective ways for the pelagic longline hooks in portions of the recreational Consolidated HMS FMP, the current
fishery to reduce bycatch of marlin and billfish fishery to reduce post-release estimate of recreationally caught
sharks; NMFS should evaluate the mortalities in the recreational billfish Atlantic white marlin post-release
impacts of using ‘‘live bait’’ and circle- fishery. Further, to ease concerns of mortality is now significantly higher
style hooks as well as careful handling anglers and simplify hook choice, than previous estimates, so an increase
and release tools and procedures; and, NMFS is considering working with hook in the number of releases would be
NMFS should further investigate how manufacturers to ensure that all hooks anticipated to result in additional
the feeding and behavior of Atlantic marketed as circle hooks are true circle mortalities.
blue marlin may affect catch rates with hooks. Comment 60: Six to ten thousand
circle hooks. Comment 58: The Maryland white marlin are caught each year by
Response: NMFS appreciates these Department of Natural Resources U.S. fishermen, both commercial and
research recommendations as a way to submitted a comment indicating that recreational. I have data showing that
help guide future research efforts and they would be willing to work with commercial mortality is higher than
funds. The Agency is always looking NMFS to teach voluntary use of circle recreational mortality in general, but in
for, and appreciative of, relevant hooks, noting that anglers must learn the past 6 years, the recreational
research suggestions and additional data how to fish these hooks and that mortality has exceeded the commercial
that can benefit the management of education for the offshore fishermen is mortality.
Atlantic HMS. The answers to many of necessary. Response: New post-release mortality
the research suggestions could Response: NMFS appreciates the State estimates allowed NMFS to examine
potentially benefit management. Some of Maryland’s willingness to work with total mortality contributions of the
of the research suggestions contributed the Agency to reach out to anglers and commercial and recreational sectors for
by commenters are currently under educate them on the use of circle hooks. Atlantic white marlin over the past four
investigation by either NMFS or private Circle hooks have been shown to years. Mortality varies greatly by year
sector entities. NMFS will consider effectively reduce post-release mortality and data set. In some years, using some
these suggestions in the future, as of many species while having little data sets, the recreational mortality
appropriate. impact on rates of catch. The Agency contribution appears to exceed the
Comment 56: Off-set circle hooks hopes that the offer by the State of commercial mortality contribution and
show less mortality than non off-set Maryland will remain open given the in some years the reverse appears to be
circle hooks. mandatory circle hook requirements for true. Please see Appendix C in the Final
Response: NMFS is unaware of data tournaments in this rule. Consolidated HMS FMP for more
showing off-set circle hooks result in a Comment 59: NMFS’s statement in detailed information by year and fishery
lower mortality rate than non-offset the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP that sector. Appendix C provides a range of
circle hooks. NMFS would appreciate increases in recreational fishing effort mortality estimates, but does not
receiving any such data that may and stable fishing mortality indicate that attempt to definitively identify mortality
support this contention, and will white marlin are decreasing in number contributions, rather, the estimates
consider it in future rulemakings, as is incorrect. Fishing mortality has not provided in that table are intended to
appropriate. increased, the recreational fishing provide reference points for discussion.
Comment 57: The Agency has not community is releasing more of them. NMFS will continue to examine this
published specifications for circle hooks Response: NMFS was unable to locate issue as new and refined data become
and I am requesting clarification of the this statement in the Draft Consolidated available.
definition of ‘‘non-offset circle hooks’’ HMS FMP. However, NMFS believes
by NMFS because, in part, each that the commenter may have intended v. Elimination of the ‘‘No Sale’’
manufacturer creates its own definition to state that increases in recreational Exemption
for non-offset circle hooks. fishing effort and stable landings of Comment 61: The ‘‘no sale’’
Response: A general definition of white marlin indicate that white marlin exemption for Atlantic billfish should
circle hooks is included in the current may be decreasing in number. The be removed. The sale of all billfish in
Federal regulations governing Atlantic number of recreationally landed the U.S. should be prohibited.
HMS, and NMFS understands the desire Atlantic white marlin reported to ICCAT Response: NMFS agrees that the
of tournament operators for additional between 2001 and 2004 varied exemption to the no sale provision for
circle hook specifications. The current considerably, ranging from a high of 191 Atlantic billfish should be removed.
However, NMFS does not agree that the increased law enforcement at spearfish, or having dead discards,
sale of all billfish, including those from establishments that may illegally sell report these data to the ICCAT
Pacific stocks, should be prohibited. Atlantic billfish, such as restaurants. Secretariat. The SCRS also indicated
Stock status of Pacific billfish is NMFS interprets this comment to be that it should consider the possibility of
currently unknown, and as such a supportive of prohibiting sale of a spearfish ‘‘only’’ stock assessment in
nation-wide ban on the sale of billfish Atlantic marlin. Further, the Caribbean the future.
may not be appropriate. The Certificate Fishery Management Council adopted a Comment 67: I support decreasing the
of Eligibility program in place for motion supporting elimination of the mortality on Atlantic billfish as much as
Atlantic billfish is designed to ensure exemption to the no-sale provision in possible, the focus of billfish
that no Atlantic billfish enter the stream August of 2005. management has to be on post-release
of commerce, while allowing Pacific mortality.
vi. General Billfish Comments Response: This rule, which will
billfish to be sold legally. However, the
Agency may reconsider a prohibition on Comment 65: The proposed Atlantic require the use of non-offset circle
the sale of Pacific billfish in the future, billfish alternatives are in direct conflict hooks with natural bait in billfish
as necessary and appropriate. with the 1988 Billfish FMP and the 1999 tournaments by HMS permitted vessels,
Comment 62: The potential ecological Billfish FMP Amendment’s stated is intended to reduce the post release
impact of billfish sales from fishermen objective of ‘‘Maintaining the highest mortality of Atlantic billfishes. A recent
in Puerto Rico would be minimal availability of billfishes to the United study by Horodoysky and Graves (2005)
because the individuals who may sell States recreational fishery by has shown that circle hooks can reduce
Atlantic billfish take only 10 - 15 fish implementing conservation measures post-release mortality on white marlin
a year, and only keep fish that come to that will reduce fishing mortality.’’ by as much as 65 percent, when
the boat dead in an effort to minimize Response: NMFS disagrees. The compared to J-hooks.
waste. Atlantic billfish provisions in this rule Comment 68: Billfish conservation is
Response: NMFS has little data on the are consistent with the stated objective an international problem, and the focus
extent of illegal sales of billfish in of maintaining the highest availability of has to be international.
Puerto Rico and cannot verify the billfishes to the U.S. recreational fishery Response: NMFS agrees that billfish
veracity of the commenter’s claims or by implementing conservation measures conservation is an issue that must be
assess the impact of these sales. NMFS that will reduce fishing mortality. addressed at the international level.
has received a significant number of Recent studies by Cramer (2005) and Nevertheless, given the low biomass
anecdotal reports of sales of Atlantic Kerstetter (2005–in press) and analyses levels of Atlantic blue and white marlin,
marlin in Puerto Rico. The number of in the Final Consolidated HMS FMP and the importance of these species to
these anecdotal reports suggests that a indicate that recreational fishing the domestic recreational fishery, it is
sizable number of Atlantic marlin may activities contribute significantly to necessary to implement measures to
be illegally sold and implies that more Atlantic billfish mortality. Because reduce post-release mortality to the
fish than just those that come to the boat biomass levels of both Atlantic blue and extent practicable in the domestic
dead are illegally entered into white marlin are currently low, it is recreational Atlantic billfish fishery.
commerce. imperative for NMFS to implement The U.S. will continue to vigorously
Comment 63: The sale of billfish is conservation measures for the domestic pursue international agreements at
legal outside of the U.S. Do foreign recreational Atlantic billfish fishery to ICCAT to reduce billfish mortality levels
vessels fishing in waters of the U.S. reduce post-release mortality and better caused by foreign fishing vessels.
need to obtain U.S. fishing permits and ensure the highest, long-term Comment 69: NMFS should designate
abide by U.S. regulations? availability of these important species to all marlin, spearfish, sailfish, and sharks
Response: Foreign commercial vessels the United States recreational fishery. as catch-and-release species, and allow
are not allowed to fish in waters of the The selected management measures, fishing for these species only with rod
U.S. unless there is an international specifically the requirement to utilize and reel and circle hooks.
fishery agreement or some other specific non-offset circle hooks when deploying Response: In the Draft Consolidated
authorization under the Magnuson- natural bait in billfish tournaments, is HMS FMP, NMFS proposed a
Stevens Act for such activity. Such an important step towards prohibition on landings of Atlantic
vessels would be subject to permit accomplishing this objective. white marlin. Although there was some
requirements and other statutory and Comment 66: NMFS must determine support for this measure, many
regulatory provisions. Foreign fishing the sustainable biomass for spearfish commenters indicated that a white
vessels which are not operated for profit and sailfish independently, as soon as marlin landings prohibition was
may engage in recreational fishing in possible. unnecessary, and that it would produce
U.S. federal and state waters. However, Response: NMFS does not conduct its significant adverse social and economic
the vessels must obtain the requisite own assessments for spearfish and impacts. After much consideration,
permits (e.g., HMS Angling permit and/ sailfish. Due to the highly migratory NMFS has decided not to select this
or any state permits) and comply with nature of these species, stock alternative at this time. Many HMS
all applicable federal and/or state laws. assessments are conducted by the recreational anglers already practice
Since the 1988 Atlantic Billfish FMP, Standing Committee on Research and catch and release fishing for white
the U.S. has prohibited commercial Statistics (SCRS) of ICCAT. The last marlin and other species. Furthermore,
retention of billfish. assessment for sailfish was conducted in the commercial sale of Atlantic billfish
Comment 64: How many comments 2001. In that assessment, the SCRS is prohibited, landings of longbill
were received from Puerto Rico on the expressed concern about the incomplete spearfish are prohibited, and several
proposed removal of the no sale reporting of catches, lack of sufficient shark species may not be landed. Strict
exemption for billfish? reports by species, and evaluations of quotas and other management measures
Response: No comments from Puerto new methods used to split the sailfish based upon the best available scientific
Rico directly addressed removal of the and spearfish catch and to index information govern commercial
no sale provision. However, one abundance. The SCRS recommended landings of most other shark species,
commenter from Puerto Rico requested that all countries landing sailfish/ while the recreational sector is required
to adhere to shark bag limits and receives or processes the billfish. The set and year. MRFSS and LPS databases
minimum size restrictions. As a result, certificate of eligibility helps to indicate that, for the period 2001 - 2004,
mandatory catch and release in the maintain the recreational nature of inclusive, the aggregate level of
recreational sector may not be necessary Atlantic billfish fishery, with no recreational mortality was
at this time and prohibiting all commercial trade. approximately three times and two
commercial shark landings is not Comment 72: NMFS received a times higher, respectively, than
necessary. Domestically, the most number of comments from recreational aggregate mortality contributions (dead
important factor in conserving billfish is fishery participants regarding pelagic discards and estimated post-release
to improve their survival after the catch longline fishing, its impact on billfish, mortality) of the domestic pelagic
and release experience. This rule and suggestions for new management longline fleet. Using RBS data, a known
requires HMS permitted fishermen to measures that should be researched or subset of recreational effort, estimated
use non-offset circle hooks when implemented. The comments included: aggregate domestic recreational
deploying natural baits in billfish new data show that just under 65 mortality appears to be about 71 percent
tournaments. This measure will percent of all white marlin caught as of estimated total domestic pelagic
complement existing circle hook bycatch on pelagic longline vessels are longline mortality for the same period
requirements in the commercial PLL dead, or die soon after being released with regard to white marlin. When
fishery by reducing post-release alive; it makes absolutely no sense to taken in combination, and in
mortality and contributing to the close recreation fishing which kills less consideration of the limitations and
rebuilding of Atlantic billfish stocks. than 1 percent of the fish caught and uncertainties associated with each data
Comment 70: The economic effects allow commercial fishing which kills base involved, two general conclusions
associated with the proposed billfish almost 100 percent of the billfish
can be drawn: (1) The aggregate
measures go far beyond the initial caught. The major source of billfish
domestic recreational fishing mortality
impacts that were analyzed in the Draft mortality (pelagic longlining) still has
contribution is higher than previously
Consolidated HMS FMP. not been satisfactorily regulated to
Response: Economic impacts are a thought with regard to Atlantic white
adequately protect these fish; the
fundamental consideration in the marlin; and (2) there is more parity
commercial pelagic longline fishery is
Agency’s decision making process. between the mortality contributions of
causing the decline in billfish
Oftentimes, however, the data are not the domestic recreational and domestic
abundance; billfish were making a
sufficient to predict, for example, how pelagic longline fleets than previously
comeback until longline fishing of their
recreational anglers might react to prey species, dolphin and wahoo, was thought. Cramer (2005) and Kerstetter
proposed management measures. If the allowed. Our club used to tag and (2006) also examined this same issue to
measures change, would anglers switch release 35 to 40 marlin per year. Now varying degrees. Both papers support
to other species, quit fishing altogether, we see only five to six marlin tags and the same basic conclusion drawn in this
take fewer trips, or travel shorter most of them are from the other side of Final Consolidated HMS FMP, that in
distances? Each of these potential the Gulf Stream; NMFS should limit the some years, the domestic recreational
behavioral reactions would impart length of pelagic longlines; and, limit billfish fishery may cause equivalent, or
different economic impacts. One of the the number of hooks that pelagic even greater, levels of mortality on
primary reasons for conducting public longline fishermen are allowed to set, Atlantic white marlin populations than
hearings and soliciting public comment and require that pelagic longline vessels the domestic pelagic longline fishery.
is to obtain supplemental information retrieve their gear every three hours to This finding, which is contrary to
on the analyzed impacts associated with reduce billfish mortality. widely held beliefs, appears to be the
proposed management measures. All Response: Many commenters stated result of new data indicating higher
written comments, as well as those that the recreational HMS fishery has post-release estimates for recreationally
received verbally at public hearings, only a minor impact on billfish released white marlin and size
were considered by the Agency in the populations relative to the commercial differences between the two fisheries.
selection of final management PLL fleet, and that additional Presently, the domestic commercial PLL
alternatives. NMFS will continue management measures should be fleet is regulated by a limited access
working to improve available social and imposed upon the commercial PLL fleet permit program; observers; vessel
economic data and analyses. rather than upon the recreational sector. upgrading restrictions; year-round and
Comment 71: NMFS should require a To address this comment, NMFS seasonal closed areas; ICCAT-
Billfish Certificate of Eligibility to help examined data from the pelagic longline recommended quotas; minimum size
improve compliance, facilitate logbook program and the RBS, MRFSS, restrictions; circle hook requirements;
enforcement and improve information and LPS databases. New information on bait restrictions; careful release
on billfish shipments coming into the recreational and commercial post- protocols; mandatory logbooks; and a
U.S. release mortality rates (Horodysky, VMS requirement, among others. The
Response: A Certificate of Eligibility 2005, and Kerstetter, 2006, recreational HMS sector is governed by
for Billfishes is required under 50 CFR respectively), when combined with an open access permit program;
635.31(b)(2)(ii), and must accompany all these databases, indicates that in some minimum size restrictions; reporting
billfish, except for a billfish landed in years, the total mortality contribution of requirements for swordfish, BFT, and
a Pacific state and remaining in the state the domestic recreational billfish fishery billfish; gear restrictions; a no-sale
of landing. This documentation certifies may equal or exceed the total mortality provision; and possession limits for
that the accompanying billfish was not contribution of the domestic pelagic swordfish, sharks and tunas, among
harvested from the Atlantic Ocean longline fleet for Atlantic white marlin. others. The selected billfish
management unit, and identifies the As described in Appendix C of the Final management measures are intended to
vessel landing the billfish, the vessel’s Consolidated HMS FMP, estimates of reduce recreational post-release
homeport, the port of offloading, and total annual recreational white marlin mortality of white marlin, because
the date of offloading. The certificate mortality (which combines landings, current estimates are substantially
must accompany the billfish to any dead discarded fish, and estimated post- higher than previously thought. NMFS
dealer or processor that subsequently release mortalities) vary greatly by data will continue to evaluate the need for
additional management measures for the year provided quota is available; and underharvest of U.S. Atlantic BFT
both the domestic PLL fleet and the the purse seine BFT fishery needs to quota, NMFS should cautiously relax
recreational HMS fishery. NMFS also become a ‘‘true’’ individual transferable the incidental catch criteria to reduce/
recognizes that foreign commercial quota (ITQ) fishery and thereby not eliminate regulatory discards and
longline vessels contribute significantly addressing the ability to transfer purse effectively utilize this category’s quota.
to Atlantic billfish mortality, and will seine quota outside the category is Response: NMFS thoroughly analyzed
continue to pursue international disappointing. Some comments stated the incidental catch requirements of
agreements at ICCAT to reduce these that the Purse Seine category should be BFT by PLL vessels and published a
levels. eliminated from the BFT fishery or final rule on May 30, 2003 (68 FR
Comment 73: NMFS would be purse seine vessels should be limited in 32414), that substantially revised the
negligent not to require mandatory the areas they fish to minimize any management scheme for this incidental
tournament registration at this time; potential gear conflicts with commercial bycatch of BFT. NMFS continues to
tournament registration should include and recreational handgear vessels. gather information regarding the
all contests in which any prize, award Response: During this rulemaking, effectiveness of incidental harvest
and/or monetary exchange is made NMFS received many comments restrictions, as well as the effectiveness
relating to the capture of Atlantic HMS; regarding management issues in the BFT of all bycatch reduction measures that
I support alternative E9, which would fishery in general and the purse seine have been implemented in the PLL
implement a mandatory HMS sector in particular. Many of these fishery. In addition, as more information
tournament permit, because monitoring comments arise from recent issues becomes available, NMFS will
and enforcement of HMS tournaments is regarding the status of BFT, reevaluate which measures, if any, it
necessary; HMS tournaments need to be underharvests in recent years, and may be appropriate to add, modify,
permitted because we need reporting current size and trip limits. ICCAT is reduce, and/or remove all together.
from them. conducting a stock assessment this Comment 3: NMFS received two
Response: NMFS currently requires summer that should provide additional comments regarding rebuilding of the
that all tournament operators register information regarding the status of BFT Western Atlantic BFT stock. These
any tournament awarding points or and the current rebuilding plan. In comments consisted of: Agency efforts
prizes for HMS with the HMS November 2006, ICCAT may should be more focused on the
Management Division, at least four recommend new management measures international BFT issues to be effective
weeks prior to the commencement of for BFT. In addition to any future in rebuilding the stock; and, BFT stocks
the tournament. The regulations are ICCAT recommendations for BFT, should be rebuilt by preventing the
being clarified to add that tournament NMFS intends to conduct a rulemaking commercial interests from overfishing.
registration is not considered complete regarding all HMS permits that could Response: NMFS agrees that
unless the operator receives a include, among other things, further international cooperation is critical to
confirmation number from NMFS. This rationalizing some segments of the HMS rebuilding the BFT stocks. The U.S. has
clarification is expected to improve the fisheries, streamlining or simplifying been at the forefront of efforts to
HMS tournament registration process. In the permitting process, restructuring the develop appropriate rebuilding plans
the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP an permit process (gear-based, species- that balance biological and socio-
alternative to require a tournament based, or both), reopening some economic imperatives and will continue
segments of the limited access system to to press the international community to
permit was considered, but not further
allow for the issuance of additional implement appropriate measures to
analyzed, because improvements to
permits, modifying when permits are rebuild Atlantic BFT stocks. ICCAT
tournament registration, data collection,
renewed (fishing year or birth month), recommended the current U.S. BFT
and enforceability can be achieved with
and considering dedicated access TAC based on the 1998 stock
less burden to the public and
privileges (e.g., individual transferable assessment for the Western Atlantic BFT
government by requiring a tournament
permits). This future rulemaking may be stock and the rebuilding plan with the
confirmation number. Because HMS
better suited to address the entire range goal of achieving maximum sustainable
tournaments frequently change
of purse seine comments that were yield within 20 years. Under the current
operators, names, and dates, a
received during this rulemaking. rebuilding plan, the United States needs
tournament permit would be
Comment 2: NMFS received a few to maintain its allocation to prevent
burdensome to administer and enforce.
comments regarding PLL in general and overfishing and contribute to rebuilding
NMFS believes that requiring a
the incidental catch of BFT by PLL the stock. The U.S. quota is allocated to
tournament confirmation number,
including: the effectiveness of the June the commercial or recreational sector in
issued by the HMS Management
PLL closure should be reevaluated in accordance with the international
Division, will accomplish the same
light of circle hook catch data; the PLL rebuilding plan. In the past few years,
objective (i.e., increased compliance) as
fishery should be afforded a greater all the commercial BFT categories have
a tournament permit would. opportunity to catch its targeted species landed fewer fish than their allocations
Management Program Structure of swordfish, allowable tunas, and would allow for. Further, ATCA
sharks, especially considering the requires that no regulation promulgated
A. BFT Quota Management existing protections for BFT in the GOM under ATCA may have the effect of
Comment 1: NMFS received a number and Florida East Coast, as well as 100 increasing or decreasing any allocation
of comments on the management of the percent circle hooks, careful handling or quota of fish or fishing mortality level
purse seine sector of the Atlantic BFT and release tools, and certified training; to which the U.S. agreed pursuant to a
fishery. These comments consisted of: NMFS should take incremental steps to recommendation of ICCAT.
BFT fisheries need every opportunity to ensure that the Incidental Longline Comment 4: Are herring issues
harvest the quota and not addressing the category fully utilizes its domestic BFT addressed in this document in terms of
large medium tolerance limits imposed allocation in order to reduce dead the impacts they are having on BFT?
on the purse seine sector in this rule is regulatory discards to the maximum Response: Atlantic herring, a food
disappointing; the Purse Seine category extent feasible within this category’s source for BFT, are currently managed
should be allowed to fish throughout allocation; due to the overall under a separate fishery management
plan by the New England Fishery consist of: increasing or decreasing the the fisheries south of North Carolina, off
Management Council (NEFMC). The General category daily retention limits; South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.
Atlantic herring fishery management adding or waiving Restricted Fishing Response: Currently, the last General
plan is being amended. During a Days (RFDs); increasing or decreasing category time-period spans the winter
NEFMC meeting on January 31, 2006, the recreational retention limit for any BFT fishery which usually begins in
the NEFMC approved a seasonal purse size-class BFT or change a vessel trip November and runs through the end of
seine/fixed-gear-only fishery for the limit to an angler limit and vice versa; the General category season (at the latest
Western Gulf of Maine (Area 1A) from transferring quota to/from any fishing on January 31). Under this rule, the
June 1 through September 31. The category or to the Reserve; closing current time-period of October through
NEFMC’s action recognizes the domestic quota categories when that January and the associated subquota
importance of herring in the Gulf of quota is reached, or is projected to be will be adjusted so that the later portion
Maine ecosystem. In addition, NMFS reached; and, closing/reopening the of the fishery will consist of three
recognizes the importance of Angling category BFT fishery by separate time-periods; October through
considering ecosystem interactions in accounting for variations in seasonal November, December, and January.
fishery management planning, and distribution, abundance, or migration With the implementation of the
addresses ecosystem management as patterns of BFT, or catch rates in one calendar year/fishing year changes in
one of the goals of the NMFS Strategic area, which may have precluded anglers this rule, the December and January
Plan. The Agency continues to work in another area from a reasonable time-periods will fall in separate fishing
toward integrating an ecosystem opportunity to harvest a portion of the years. Fisheries were not active across
approach into fishery management Angling category quota. The Angling fishing years prior to the 1999 FMP,
practices. category BFT fishery or part of the which originally adjusted the BFT
Comment 5: Yellowfin tuna should fishery may be reopened at a later date fishery from a calendar year to a fishing
not take a ‘‘back seat’’ to BFT, and if it is determined that BFT migrated year spanning two calendar years.
NMFS needs to put more resources into into the other area. NMFS must consider Under this rule, the annual baseline
yellowfin tuna data collection, analyses, specific criteria prior to taking each type quota for the January time-period will
and regulation. of inseason action. Currently, NMFS has be 5.3 percent of the coastwide General
Response: NMFS acknowledges the multiple sets of criteria, each one category quota. As indicated in Section
importance of yellowfin tuna to the U.S. designed for a specific type of inseason 4.3.1.1 of the Final Consolidated HMS
fishing industry. The latest SCRS report action, that are used in making a FMP, several options may be used to
indicates that the current fishing determination. However, in this rule, dispose of carryover of any under or
mortality rate for yellowfin tuna may be NMFS is consolidating those lists to overharvest during the December time-
higher than that which will support make the inseason action determination period. In the first alternative, any
maximum sustainable yield on a under or overharvest could be entirely
process more transparent and
continuing basis. NMFS has taken a rolled over into January of the following
consistent.
number of actions during, and since, the fishing year and added to the baseline
implementation of the 1999 FMP to The end results of some inseason
5.3 percent allocation. Under this
address the management of YFT actions may be perceived as a closure of
scenario, the entire underharvest would
fisheries (e.g., imposing limited access a certain geographic area. For instance,
be added to the January time-period
on the longline and purse seine sectors if NMFS were to implement a number subquota, or the entire overharvest
of the fleet and implementing a of consecutive RFDs in the General would be subtracted from the time-
recreational retention limit). By taking category it will suspend fishing period subquota. In another potential
precautionary initiatives for activities for that time period. NMFS alternative, 5.3 percent of the under or
conservation measures, the U.S. will also has the ability to implement an overharvest may be applied to the
have a stronger negotiating position at interim closure in the Angling category January time-period in addition to the
ICCAT if additional management as described above in this response. An baseline 5.3 percent allocation. In a
measures become necessary. NMFS area closure for any other BFT category third alternative, no under or
currently has reporting programs in or a multi-year area closure for any BFT overharvest would be added or
place to collect commercial and category will require a regulatory subtracted from the January time-period
recreational YFT data. This information, amendment, including public comment. subquota. NMFS will work with the
in turn, is provided to ICCAT and the Comment 7: The SAFMC supports affected constituents through the annual
SCRS to be compiled with other alternative F3(c), which would provide BFT specification process to determine
information from member nations to be an opportunity for a winter BFT fishery. the most appropriate approach based on
used in assessing the YFT stock. Further, the Council supported an constituent needs and Federal
Therefore, NMFS maintains that no equitable BFT quota allocation for the regulatory requirements.
further action regarding the YFT South Atlantic region (North Carolina Comment 8: The allocations between
fisheries is necessary at this time. southward), as well as any other actions domestic quota categories should be
However, NMFS will continue to that will ensure fishermen in all the adjusted, specifically increasing the
monitor the status of the YFT fisheries South Atlantic states (North Carolina, quota for the Angling category.
as SCRS has indicated that the yellowfin South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida’s Response: The Agency did not
tuna stock is fully-exploited and will East coast) have an opportunity to consider a modification to the sector
pursue future actions if warranted. participate in this fishery. The SAMFC allocations in this action; therefore, a
Comment 6: Does NMFS have the is concerned about the proposed separate rulemaking and FMP
authority to close an area or region to January 1 starting date for BFT fishing amendment would be needed to
BFT fishing via an inseason action? because it will prevent underages from increase the allocation to the Angling
Response: NMFS has the regulatory being carried over into the following category. The original allocations reflect
authority to provide for maximum January of the new fishing year. The the sector’s historical share of the
utilization of the BFT quota by ability to carry these underages forward landings during the 1983 through 1991
conducting various types of inseason can keep the fishery open through the time period, and were codified as part
actions. The inseason actions may month of January, which is critical to of the 1999 FMP process.
Comment 9: NMFS received planning throughout the entire General opportunity to harvest a portion of the
numerous comments for and against the category season. In light of recent Angling category quota.
adjustment of the General category time- underharvests in the General category, Response: NMFS has modified the
periods and associated subquotas. Those NMFS is aware of the need to provide selected alternative, F4, from the Draft
comments in support of an adjustment reasonable opportunities to harvest the Consolidated HMS FMP by removing
include: September through December General category quota, and how this the proposal to eliminate the North/
have been the strongest months for BFT relates to requests to extend the fishery South Angling category dividing line
fishing and these allocations should be throughout the year. However, as catch and thereby maintaining the status quo
increased; General category time-period rates in the BFT fishery can increase regarding this recreational management
subquota allocations should allow for a quite dramatically in a short time tool.
dependable winter BFT fishery period, there are concerns in allowing a NMFS acknowledges the recreational
according to the percentages in the fishery to emerge that may be fishery supports the North/South line
North Carolina Department of Marine unsustainable or cause for a variety of socio-economic reasons.
Fisheries (NCDMF) Petition for overcapitalization on a species that is Based on the social and economic
Rulemaking; General category time- currently designated as overfished. impacts associated with the status quo
period and subquota allocations should Comment 10: NMFS received alternative, NMFS prefers retaining the
reflect the migration of the fish through comments both in favor of and opposed North/South line at this time. However,
a particular area; there needs to be a to the preferred alternative to establish for this management tool to be most
balance between flexibility and General category time-periods, effective, NMFS requires real-time BFT
predictability; the General category subquotas, and geographic set-asides via landings data from the recreational
should be split across 12 months of annual framework actions. The sector. To date, compliance with the
equal portions and any arbitrary closure comment in favor stated the preferred recreational Automated Landing
date should be removed to allow full alternative allows for a balance between Reporting System (ALRS) has been low,
harvest of the quota; is there a biological flexibility and predictability in the thus hindering the real-time
reason we do not allow the General General category BFT fishery. The effectiveness of this management tool. If
category BFT fishery to be prosecuted in comment opposed stated the overall compliance with the ALRS
the months of February through May; all BFT management program should not requirements increases or, as
selected alternatives should allow for be modified. recreational catch monitoring programs
the full utilization of the available quota Response: Annual regulatory are improved over time, the
so the U.S. can prove we have a stake framework actions will be used to effectiveness of this management tool
in these fisheries. Vessels need to be establish and adjust the General may increase.
able to catch fish and then make money category time-periods, subquotas, and Comment 12: NMFS received two
off those fish to reinvest into the fishery geographic set-asides. This procedural comments regarding the clarification of
in the following years as this is a sign change to the management of this the school size-class BFT tolerance
of a healthy fishery; catching wild BFT category will expedite the process, calculation. One comment supported
throughout the year is in the best providing the agency with greater the selected alternative that will
interests of U.S. fishermen and the U.S. flexibility to adapt to changes in the calculate the school size-class tolerance
should remove any arbitrary controls fishery and the industry with greater amount prior to accounting for the NED
(e.g., seasonal closures) to allow for the predictability in the management of the set-aside quota because it brings the
harvest of U.S. quota; and, regardless of General category’s upcoming fishing calculation more in line with the ICCAT
which alternative is selected, when the year. The General category will have recommendation regarding school size-
fishery converts back to the calendar consistent time-periods and subquota class BFT tolerances. The second
year, a methodology needs to be allocations from one year to the next comment stated there was no
developed to allow quota to carry unless ICCAT provides a new recreational input when the tolerance
forward from December into January, recommendation for the U.S. BFT TAC. limit was implemented, and the
i.e., across years, in a timely fashion. In Comment 11: NMFS received a tolerance limit should be 15- or 16–
addition, there was broad support at the number of comments opposing the percent of the total quota.
March 2005 AP meeting for revising the removal of the Angling category North/ Response: This rule will clarify the
General category time-periods and South dividing line and one comment procedure NMFS uses to calculate the
subquotas to allow for a winter fishery, supporting its removal. The comments ICCAT recommended 8 percent
due to the slight increase in quota as include: the BFT North/South dividing tolerance for BFT under 115 cm (young
well as on informal agreements between line should be maintained as it was school and school BFT), thus
user groups and the Agency. created to provide ‘‘fair and equitable’’ implementing the ICCAT
Comments in opposition of an distribution of the BFT quota; it appears recommendation more accurately based
adjustment include: the Agency needs that the reason for removing the North/ on the specific language contained in
to manage the BFT fishery in the South line is not due to a lack of real the recommendation. Regarding the
traditional manner; and changing the time data, but because of participant comment stating a lack of recreational
General category time-periods and noncompliance with the current call-in input in developing the 8 percent
subquotas will have negative impacts on system; NMFS should devise a reliable tolerance limit for the smaller size
the traditional New England fishermen. real-time data collection system for classes of BFT, ATCA authorizes
Response: This rule to amend the recreational BFT landings; the funds domestic implementation of ICCAT-
coastwide General category time-periods used to support the current LPS adopted management measures, and
and their associated subquota program should be reallocated to provides that no U.S. regulation may
allocations will strike a balance between implement tail tag programs at the state have the effect of either increasing or
formalizing a winter fishery, level, similar to North Carolina and decreasing the quota or fishing mortality
acknowledging recent trends in the BFT Maryland; and the agency should level adopted by ICCAT. ATCA also
fishery, as well as recognizing the develop more recreational set-asides to provides that not more than three
traditional patterns of the fishery. This further ensure that recreational Commissioners shall represent the
rule will also allow for business participants are provided an equitable United States in ICCAT. Of the three
U.S. Commissioners, one must have for year-round General category importance and will be fully
knowledge and experience regarding landings. If the fishing year is changed considered, as appropriate, in making a
recreational fishing in the Atlantic to January 1, then any prior year’s determination; however, in some
Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, or Caribbean uncaught quota should be allowed to be circumstances, not all criteria will be
Sea. In addition, the U.S. caught between February 1 and May 31; relevant to the decision making process.
Commissioners are required to implementing a domestic rollover Comment 15: NMFS received a
constitute an Advisory Committee to the limitation would adversely affect our number of comments that did not
U.S. National Section to ICCAT. This ability to negotiate at ICCAT as the directly address the actions being
body, to the maximum extent bottom line remains the same regardless proposed in the Consolidated HMS
practicable, consists of an equitable of which domestic category the FMP, but are more general in nature or
balance representing the interests of underharvest resides in; rollover are more pertinent to the recently
various groups concerned with the limitations are helpful, however this proposed 2006 Atlantic BFT Quota
fisheries covered by the Convention, item should be addressed at ICCAT; Specification and effort controls. These
including those of the recreational and, the Agency needs to be aware of comments consist of: the maximum
community. the ripple effects quota rollovers have three fish per day General category bag
Comment 13: NMFS received a on business planning late in the season. limit should be eliminated. Flexibility
number of comments for and against Response: This rule authorizes NMFS to set the bag limit higher may be
implementing a rollover limitation for to limit the amount of BFT quota that needed as the fishery evolves and to
each domestic quota category. Those in may be carried forward from one fishing allow for the possibility of a distant
support of the limitation include: a year to the next. By establishing a water General category fishery; NMFS
rollover cap should be implemented, limitation that may be imposed on each should relax the ‘‘tails on tuna’’
but the cap should be set lower because domestic quota category, except the requirement. The tail is not necessary
a rollover of up to 100 percent of a Reserve, NMFS will be better equipped for species identification. This
category’s baseline allocation could be to address quota stockpiling situations if requirement prevents higher quality
harmful to the fishery in future years as they arise. This rule will not preclude cleaning and storage at sea. Many years
it will lead to unsustainable inseason quota transfers to any of the of data confirm that prohibited
overcapitalization; and NMFS must domestic quota categories if warranted. undersized tunas are either not
develop a way to track size classes of Due to the different size classes that encountered or are extremely rare in
BFT entering the Reserve category as a each category may target, the number of this fishery. ICCAT has eliminated the
result of this cap, so there are no BFT per metric ton may differ; therefore minimum size for some Atlantic tunas.
conflicts with overall mortality the origin of the quota entering the The tails on requirement is an
estimates. category must be noted, to ensure unnecessary and costly burden that
Comments in opposition of the mortality levels are consistent with should be removed; NMFS is using
rollover limitation include: rollover of those accounted for in the stock RFDs to deny fishermen a reasonable
quotas should be eliminated to increase assessment. This rule will have minimal opportunity to catch the quota and to
conservation; limiting the amount of conservation benefits on the Western make U.S. fishermen do more to
quota that categories can roll over is not Atlantic BFT stock as a whole. NMFS conserve BFT than fishermen from other
appropriate at this time; NMFS should supports an international discussion on countries with ICCAT BFT quotas.
not get ahead of ICCAT as it the use of rollover caps, as well as their NMFS should not implement RFDs
compromises the U.S. delegation’s pros and cons. Implementing the unless the General category quota is in
ability to negotiate multilateral potential use of a cap domestically immediate danger of being exceeded.
implementation in the future; long term should not adversely affect the U.S. NMFS should remove every domestic
ramifications of lost quota have not been delegation’s ability to negotiate and play restriction that denies U.S. fishermen a
fully explored on both domestic and a strong role on this issue as U.S. BFT reasonable opportunity to catch the
international fronts; and the United quota levels will remain consistent. quota.
States should not ask any more of its Comment 14: NMFS received Response: This action does not
citizens while quota is not harvested, comments supporting the consolidation address these specific items, however,
and international conservation measures of the inseason action determination the 2006 Atlantic BFT quota
are not equivalent. criteria. These comments consisted of: specifications and effort controls
Other comments NMFS received revising and consolidating the criteria address retention limits, as well as the
regarding this issue include: when there for BFT management actions improves use of RFDs in the coastwide General
is surplus quota in commercial the agency’s flexibility and consistency category. The final initial 2006
categories, recreational anglers should in making determinations; and the specifications published on May 30,
be permitted to take part of this surplus; preferred alternative should be selected, 2006 (71 FR 30619). Regarding the
categories should not be punished or however, it needs to be clarified if the removal of tuna tails, NMFS has
rewarded for not harvesting the quota criteria have a different ranking of received past comments from the
until all arbitrary regulations have been importance. industry, particularly the HMS CHB
removed; the Agency needs to proceed Response: Consolidating and refining sector, to investigate this possibility.
cautiously with rolling over quota in the criteria that NMFS must consider However, the proposal to process HMS
case there is a stock issue; however, the prior to conducting any inseason, and at sea may compromise enforcement of
United States needs to maintain control some annual, actions will assist in domestic size limits. To date, NMFS has
of the underharvests due to the lack of meeting the consolidated HMS FMP’s been able to enforce the domestic size
conservation of other member nations; objectives in a consistent manner, limits for HMS through curved
rollovers from the previous fishing year providing reasonable fishing measurements, which requires the tail
should be accessible in the January time opportunities, increasing the remain on the fish. This has been an
period if the selected alternative to transparency in the decision making efficient and effective way of enforcing
change back to a calendar year is process, and balancing the resource’s size limits.
implemented; uncaught sub-period needs with users’ needs. The criteria Comment 16: NMFS received
quota should be rolled forward to allow listed are in no particular order of comments requesting changes in the
allowable use of harpoons on CHB Response: This rule will adjust tuna, may be adopted at any time, usually
vessels. These comments include: swordfish, and billfish fisheries so that such adjustments occur after stock
NMFS should authorize the use of all HMS fisheries occur on a calendar assessments, which are performed at
harpoons as primary gear to target giant year. The previous shift from a calendar several year intervals. Thus, on average,
BFT from the pulpit of CHBs to allow year to a fishing year (1996 for more complex rulemakings are
maximum flexibility. With the cost of swordfish, 1999 for tuna and billfish) anticipated to occur less frequently.
doing business rising daily and the accommodated domestic markets for NMFS notes that rulemakings that
fishery changing dramatically over the swordfish and provided additional time adjust quotas or implement other
past few years, this antiquated for rulemaking to implement ICCAT significant changes in fishery
prohibition needs to be modified to recommendations, since ICCAT management programs usually require
allow CHB operators the opportunity traditionally meets in November of each more than the amount of time (e.g.,
and versatility to harpoon BFT on days year. Use of a fishing year is allowed by seven months) that would have been
that they are not carrying paying ICCAT. Since the fishing year was available between adoption of a
passengers. This rule was originally implemented for these species, several recommendation at ICCAT and start of
written to curb the sale of undersized aspects of the fisheries and their the fishing year, if fisheries had been
BFT, which is no longer an issue. management have changed. For the past maintained on a fishing year schedule
Response: In 1993, NMFS created a several years, the U.S. has not fully rather than adjusted to a calendar year.
recreational Atlantic tunas permit that harvested its swordfish quota, and has Comment 3: Commenters opposed the
was required for CHB or privately carried over quota underharvest from adjustment to a calendar year because of
operated vessels targeting any of the one year to the next. Because of this potential socio-economic impacts of a
regulated Atlantic tuna species. This underharvest, summer swordfish shift to calendar year in combination
rulemaking also established a list of markets have not been limited by the with the proposed ICCAT 250 marlin
allowable gears that can be used to amount of quota available, and starting limit, particularly for billfish
harvest tunas. In 1995, NMFS removed the fishing year in early summer to tournaments. Commenters stated the
the ability for vessels to hold more than avoid quota shortfalls has been following: a basic analysis
one permit at a time. In that 1995 unnecessary. In addition, after several demonstrating the economic importance
rulemaking, NMFS proposed, collected years of experience with ICCAT of billfish tournaments should be
comments on, and finalized a list of negotiations since the U.S. implemented included, and millions of dollars of
authorized gears for the CHB sector of the fishing year, NMFS and the U.S.’s prize money is missing from the current
the fishery. Harpoons were not ICCAT delegation have found analysis; what is the impact if a large
proposed as an authorized gear, nor misunderstanding regarding data tournament that happened later in the
were any comments received requesting alignment over time periods year was restricted to catch and release
this gear type be authorized for CHB unnecessarily confuses decisions, fishing only; and, it appears that
vessels at that time; therefore, harpoon negotiation, and ultimately enforcement adjusting all HMS fisheries to a fishing
gear was not listed as an authorized of ICCAT recommendations. Adjusting year will socio-economically benefit
primary gear type. As NMFS has tuna, swordfish, and billfish fisheries to most HMS fisheries.
conducted a number of rulemakings a calendar year will increase Response: The HMS FMP identifies
regarding permits, permissible gears, transparency in U.S. data and statistics, that the potential for reaching the
and targeted species, NMFS intends to and help focus on achieving domestic ICCAT marlin 250 limit is low and
conduct a comprehensive rulemaking and international fishery management subsequent prohibition of marlin
regarding all HMS permits that could objectives such as reducing/eliminating landings unlikely. Over the past several
include, among other things, further IUU fishing. years, U.S. billfish landings have only
rationalizing some segments of the HMS Comment 2: Commenters expressed been attained in a single year. In
fisheries or restructuring the permit concern about the timely addition, the FMP includes a measure
process (gear-based, species-based, or implementation of ICCAT that will allow increases in size limits
both). This future rulemaking may be recommendations under a calendar as a means of reducing landings to avoid
better suited to address further revisions year, the potential disadvantage to U.S. attaining the limit and implementation
to authorized gears and the permitting fishermen if ICCAT recommendations of catch and release fishing only.
structure for managed HMS. The issue were not implemented in a timely Despite the limited potential for
of allowing the use of various gears to fashion, and the need for fishery reaching the limit, the Consolidated
subdue HMS caught on authorized specifications to be available prior to the HMS FMP analyzes potential impacts
primary gears was analyzed in the Final start of calendar year fisheries. should the limit be attained, using the
Consolidated HMS FMP. Please refer to Response: NMFS recognizes that worst case scenario that tournaments
discussions of Authorized Fishing Gear. switching back to a calendar year will would be cancelled if the limit were
reduce the amount of time between the attained. This analysis indicates that
B. Timeframe for Annual Management adoption of ICCAT recommendations in socio-economic impacts could be higher
of HMS Fisheries November and the start of calendar year under a calendar year scenario. These
Comment 1: Public comments fisheries on January 1. This HMS FMP impacts could be mitigated if
expressed both support and opposition will adjust the process for issuing tournaments required catch and release.
for administratively adjusting all HMS annual BFT specifications by On balance, NMFS anticipates that the
fisheries to a calendar year. Commenters consolidating the analysis in the FMP benefits, as described in Chapter 4 of the
asked the following: what has changed itself, and thus reducing the annual HMS FMP and in the response to
since fisheries were originally shifted burden and associated amount of time Comment 1 of this section, provided by
from a calendar year; Is the United necessary for promulgation of the switching to a calendar year and other
States in compliance with ICCAT annual specifications. NMFS anticipates regulatory adjustments set forth in the
reporting requirements using a fishing that BFT specifications will usually be Consolidated HMS FMP will outweigh
year? Several commenters stated that issued on time using these newly potential negative impacts. NMFS did
use of a fishing year was not a adopted procedures. Although ICCAT not identify, nor did commenters
disadvantage at ICCAT. recommendations that can adjust quotas provide, any positive socio-economic
impacts for switching the shark fishery be added to the January subperiod authorize any new gears for the bluefin
to a fishing year. Impacts of concern for quota, or the entire overharvest would tuna commercial or recreational
ICCAT managed fisheries (e.g. tuna, be subtracted from the subperiod quota. fisheries.
swordfish, and billfish) are discussed in In another potential alternative, 5.3 In this action, NMFS considered the
the response to Comment 1 of this percent of the under- or overharvest definition and authorization of speargun
section. would be applied to the January gear, green-stick gear, and buoy gear, as
Comment 4: Several commenters subperiod in addition to the baseline 5.3 well as the clarification of the allowable
questioned the effect of a change to percent. In a third alternative, no under- use of secondary gears (also known as
calendar year on the January General or overharvest would be added or cockpit gears). At this time, NMFS is
category BFT fishery, particularly the subtracted from the January subperiod’s authorizing only one new gear for the
disposition of quota underages that may 5.3 percent allocation. NMFS will work HMS fisheries, recreational speargun
have occurred in the previous calendar with the affected constituents through fishing for Atlantic BAYS tunas. NMFS
year. Commenters stated the following: the annual BFT specification process to does not believe that the addition of
I oppose a shift to calendar year because determine the most appropriate speargun fishing for Atlantic BAYS
of the potential negative impacts to approach based on constituent needs would disrupt existing rebuilding plans
southeastern fishermen; and, I support a and Federal requirements. for overfished BAYS tunas given the
roll-over provision from December to current number of participants in the
January similar to the rollover provision C. Authorized Fishing Gears recreational Atlantic tuna fishery
that exists between sub-periods during a Comment 1: NMFS received several relative to the expected number of
fishing year. comments in support of and opposed to spearfishermen. Additionally, taking
Response: The HMS regulations at 50 the introduction of new gear. Comments into account the estimated low
CFR 635.27(a)(1) divide the General supporting the introduction of new encounter rates for target species using
category quota into three subperiods gears include: expansion of authorized speargun fishing gear, the additional
including June through August, gears would be acceptable in anticipated effort from spearfishermen
September, and October through underexploited fisheries. Gears without will likely result in minimal increased
January. These regulations further state bycatch problems could improve the landings compared with the landings by
that NMFS will adjust General category availability of swordfish to the current Angling and CHB category
subperiod quotas based on under- or American public; and, gear innovations participants. A limited number of
overharvest during the previous should not be stymied. Comments additional individual fishermen are
subperiod. Currently, the last subperiod opposed to the introduction of new expected to use this gear type, and
spans the winter south Atlantic BFT gears include: I am opposed to the spearfishermen may actually fish for
fishery which usually begins in introduction of any new commercial months or years without having an
November and continues until the fisheries; do not allow new effective opportunity to spear a tuna. All sale of
General category closes (at the latest on gears in fisheries that are undergoing tuna harvested with recreational
January 31). Under the Consolidated rebuilding; do not allow any new gear speargun fishing gear will be prohibited
HMS FMP, these subperiods will be types, especially for BFT; why should in order to clarify the intent of
adjusted so that the winter fishery will NMFS authorize new gears?; NMFS has authorizing this gear type, which is to
include separate subperiods in reported that all HMS fisheries are fully allow a small group of fishermen an
December and January, each of which harvested or overfished. NMFS’s opportunity to use spearguns to
occur in a separate fishing year. An proposal to legalize new commercial recreationally target BAYS tuna. BFT
active fishery did not occur across the gear violates National Standard 1, which are excluded from the list of allowable
change of quota years prior to the 1999 is to prevent or end overfishing of tuna, target species for speargun gear due to
FMP, which originally adjusted the BFT swordfish, billfish, and sharks; this will the recent declining performance of the
fishery to a fishing year. In addition, not permit overfished stocks to rebuild. existing BFT fishery, recent quota
prior to 2003, the BFT fishery rarely Additional new commercial gear can limited situations within the BFT
experienced underharvest and roll-over only result in fully harvested HMS Angling category, and ongoing concerns
of unharvested quota. Under this becoming overfished; we do not support over stock status.
Consolidated HMS FMP, the January allowing new gears into overfished The selected buoy gear alternative
subperiod will have a quota of 5.3 fisheries except for use as experimental will not authorize a new gear; rather, it
percent of the annual ICCAT allocation. fishing permits; NMFS proposes to will rename the handline fishery for
In consideration of a potential authorize new commercial gear types commercial swordfish and limit the
underharvest and rollover of General that can only increase the harvest of number of gears deployed in this
category quota from one calendar year to HMS; and there is a lot of resistance to fishery. Defining ‘‘buoy gear’’ was
the next (i.e., December to January), new gears in the Gulf of Mexico. necessary because the Final
NMFS has explored various ways to Response: As current or traditional Consolidated HMS FMP will also
manage this situation. A preferred gears are modified and new gears are modify the ‘‘handline’’ definition to
approach would depend upon the developed, NMFS needs to be cognizant require that the gear be attached to a
magnitude of the underharvest and the of these advances to gauge their vessel. Therefore, under the selected
needs of the fishery at the time. Several potential impacts on target catch rates, alternative, the commercial swordfish
potential alternatives regarding the bycatch rates, and protected species handgear fishery will be the only fishery
disposition of carryover of any under or interactions, all of which can have where free-floating handlines, now
overharvest during the December important management implications. referred to as buoy gear, will be
subperiod are discussed in Chapter 4 of While NMFS needs to evaluate new and authorized. Under this rule, buoy gear
the Consolidated HMS FMP. In the first innovative gears and techniques to fishermen will be limited to possessing
alternative, any under or overharvest increase efficiency and reduce bycatch or deploying no more than 35 floatation
could be fully rolled over into January in fisheries for Atlantic HMS, the devices, with no more than two hooks
of the following fishing year in addition Agency did not select any new fishing or gangions attached to each individual
to the baseline 5.3 percent. Under this gears for the HMS commercial fisheries gear. Prior to this action, buoy gear had
scenario, the entire underharvest would at this time. Further, this action will not been utilized with no limit on the
number of gears deployed, as long as tuna fisheries, like NMFS is trying to necessary, as well as for which
each gear had no more than two hooks promote with the handline, buoy, and particular gears and areas. A gear
attached and it was released and green-stick fisheries, will negatively stowage provision may be considered in
retrieved by hand. Also, both affect marlin stocks because they target a future rulemaking, if appropriate.
recreational and commercial fishermen marlin prey species; and, were any Comment 5: NMFS received
were able to use this gear in areas closed bycatch analyses conducted for the comments from individuals concerned
to PLL gear. Under the selected proposed authorized gears? about the use of gillnets in HMS
alternative, buoy gear will be prohibited Response: This action will not change fisheries. These comments include: the
for use by all commercial fishermen the currently allowed and authorized Georgia Coastal Resources Division
without a swordfish handgear or use of green-stick gear in any HMS supports the removal of shark gillnet
directed limited access permit and by commercial fishery. This action from the list of authorized HMS gear;
all recreational fishermen. Additionally, distinguishes between handlines and and, gillnets should not be an
when targeting swordfish commercially, buoy gear, such that handlines must be authorized gear, particularly sink
the number of individual gears a vessel attached to the vessel and buoy gear will gillnets due to interactions with
may possess or deploy will be limited be allowed to float freely; however, both protected resources and other bycatch. If
to no more than 35. Vessels with handlines and buoy gear were NMFS is going to continue to allow
directed swordfish or swordfish authorized and used in HMS fisheries gillnets, the vessels should be required
handgear LAPs may use this gear type commercially and recreationally prior to to use VMS year round.
to capture swordfish in pelagic longline this action. The rule limits buoy gear Response: NMFS considered
closed areas, provided all longline gear usage to the commercial swordfish prohibiting the use of shark gillnet gear
has been removed from the vessel. fishery for individuals with a swordfish as part of a range of commercial
While buoy gear will be allowed in the handgear or directed limited access management measures to prevent
Gulf of Mexico, the swordfish handgear permit. No HMS other than swordfish overfishing of finetooth sharks, but did
fishery does not appear to be may be harvested with buoy gear. not pursue this option because finetooth
widespread and operates primarily off Because swordfish is not a marlin prey sharks would continue to be discarded
the East Coast of Florida, according to species, the Agency does not believe dead in other non-HMS fisheries, and
public comment. buoy gear will have a negative impact thus, the prohibition would not likely
Based on public comment, the Agency on marlin stocks. No bycatch analyses prevent overfishing. In this action,
prefers to clarify the authorized are available for handline or buoy gear, NMFS will require shark gillnet vessel
configuration of green-stick gear, rather but data from the logbooks were owners and operators to attend the
than proceed with authorization and reviewed. The HMS logbook does not protected species safe handling and
definition of the gear-type that may distinguish between attached and release workshop and obtain
further add to the confusion and have unattached handlines, so specific certification. The goal for this workshop
unintended negative consequences to information on unattached handline (or will be to reduce the mortality of sea
the fishery and resource. Public buoy gear) catch is limited. In general, turtles, smalltooth sawfish, and other
comments were opposed to and the HMS commercial handline fishery protected species. At this time, vessels
supported authorizing green-stick gear has relatively few discards. While there issued a directed shark LAP with a
for the commercial harvest of Atlantic are no bycatch analyses available for gillnet on board that are away from port
BAYS tunas; expressed considerable recreational speargun fishing, public during the right whale calving season
confusion over the current regulatory comment suggests that the number of must have VMS on board. This action
regime; were concerned about the need individuals using this gear will be small did not consider expanding this
for better reporting, monitoring, and and those that do use the gear expect condition to require VMS on shark
overall data collection for this gear-type; low encounter rates with target species. gillnet vessels year round.
and expressed a need to further According to public comment, this Comment 6: There is confusion
understand the gear’s technical nature. fishery is highly selective and the gear regarding the proposed gears. The
Comment 2: Commercial HMS has been designed to retain speared fish process needs to slow down, and we
handline gear, buoy gear, and green- and reduce fish loss. With the need to make sure we understand what
sticks should be prohibited in the closed authorization of this gear for the our goal is. We should be encouraging
areas. recreational harvest of BAYS tunas only, innovation. Each gear needs to be
Response: The current HMS closed information about speargun catch will reviewed to determine where each gear
areas were specifically developed for a be captured via the MRFSS and LPS. appropriately fits; the public is going to
particular gear type (e.g., PLL or BLL) to Comment 4: NMFS should clarify the need more education on the proposed
reduce bycatch and discards. At this HMS authorized gear regulations to gears and associated requirements. The
time, there are no time/area closures for allow for gear stowage provisions. Such Agency needs to clarify before
buoy and handline gear. If a green-stick provisions would enable vessels to authorizing; and, the language in the
is configured with more than two hooks, diversify, and would also provide alternatives needs to be looked at, it
then it would meet the definition of vessels with the ability to operate in appears some alternatives are allowing
‘‘longline,’’ and thus, would also be other fisheries. The Northeast gear use to continue and others are allowing
prohibited from certain closed areas. If stowage provision needs to be its entry.
future data indicate that the bycatch acknowledged in the HMS regulations. Response: While NMFS encourages
rates of these gears are high, NMFS Response: A gear stowage provision the use of clean and efficient gears, this
would consider closing certain areas, or for HMS permitted vessels was not action will authorize the use of only one
other management measures, to considered in this action and, therefore, new gear type due to the stock status of
minimize bycatch and bycatch is not authorized at this time. NMFS has several HMS. Speargun fishing gear will
mortality, to the extent practicable. concerns about the enforceability of be authorized only for permit holders
Comment 3: NMFS received a such a provision in HMS closed areas. with HMS Angling category or HMS
comment concerned about the bycatch The Agency would appreciate CHB cateogry permits and users will be
associated with the introduction of new additional comments on situations allowed only to target Atlantic BAYS
gears. Those comments include: small where gear stowage provisions are tunas recreationally. It will not be
authorized for BFT, or any other HMS. specifically alternative H2, which expansion beyond recreational tuna
The sale of BAYS speared by speargun would authorize speargun fishing gear fishing while other comments supported
gear is not allowed. The selected in the recreational Atlantic tuna fishery. additional restrictions. Comments in
alternative for buoy gear will not be an The comments include: authorizing support of expansion include: adding
introduction of new gear, rather a speargun fishing gear for Atlantic tunas spearguns as an allowed gear for sharks;
clarification of an existing gear and a would provide very high economic and, all HMS fisheries should
restriction on the number of floatation benefits and produce very low eventually open to spearfishing. The
devices used in the existing commercial ecological impacts; the impact of tuna GMFMC specifically supported
swordfish handgear fishery. In an effort spearfishing would be minimal and the spearfishing as an approved gear for all
to reduce confusion and increase number of participants would be low; HMS fisheries, including sharks, and
compliance, NMFS will modify the spearfishermen were left out of the List recommended that the gear be
HMS compliance guide and other of Fisheries for tunas and sharks when authorized for recreational and
outreach materials to reflect these initially established; and, a speargun commercial harvest. In contrast, other
changes to the HMS authorized gears. fisherman can choose his target, assess comments supported restricting the use
Comment 7: NMFS must clarify that his chances, and be more discriminate of spearguns as proposed, stating no sale
a longline vessel is allowed to use the in his hunting, which is not something should be allowed for anyone when a
following fishing gears when not a hook and line fisherman can do. tuna is harvested with a speargun under
longline fishing: handgear including, Comments received in support also any circumstances, and speargun
harpoon, handline, and rod and reel stated affirmation that recreational fishermen should not be allowed to sell
(plus the green-stick method, if divers would be allowed to be tuna catches from CHB vessels as
authorized). transported to the site by a charter dive proposed. A commenter stated his
Response: The HMS regulations at boat; and, the tuna regulations would concern that the ability to sell fish might
§ 635.21(e)(1) state that if an Atlantic allow the taking of tuna in the Atlantic be viewed as an impediment to allow
BFT is retained or in possession, the with handheld, rubber band or participation in this fishery and, thus,
vessel may employ only the gear pneumatic power spearguns by NMFS should not allow sale of fish to
authorized for the particular Atlantic recreational fishermen while avoid jeopardizing any chance of
tunas or HMS permit category issued to underwater. authorizing recreational use of speargun
the vessel. In other words, with a BFT Response: This rule will authorize the fishing gear. NMFS also received
on board and an Atlantic Tunas use of spearguns in the recreational comments to further restrict the use of
Longline permit issued to the vessel, Atlantic BAYS tuna fishery. Holders of speargun fishing gear to allow only
only longline gear may be possessed or recreational HMS Angling and HMS freedivers to harvest tuna (i.e., not allow
employed. When fishing for Atlantic CHB permits will be allowed to carry SCUBA gear) consistent with original
BAYS tunas, the vessel may employ spearguns and fish for, retain, and public comment on use of this gear-
fishing gear authorized for any Atlantic possess any of the BAYS tunas using type.
Tunas permit category. The two speargun gear. Speargun gear will not be
exceptions are that purse seine gear may authorized under any other HMS or Response: This rule will authorize the
be used only on board vessels permitted Atlantic tuna vessel permit or for any use of spearguns in the HMS
in the Purse Seine category and pelagic other HMS species. Speargun gear will recreational fishery only for Atlantic
longline gear may be used only on board not be authorized to fish for, retain, or BAYS tunas. This measure will provide
vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas land Atlantic BFT. BAYS tunas killed speargun fishermen an opportunity to
Longline category tuna permit as well as and landed with the use of speargun use this gear-type and will increase the
LAPs for both swordfish and sharks. gear may not be sold under any social and economic benefits for this
When targeting Atlantic BAYS tunas circumstances, including by owners, user-group. While providing this
with an Atlantic Tunas Longline permit, operators, or participants on HMS CHB opportunity, NMFS is also balancing
a vessel may use handgear (i.e., vessels. Fishermen using speargun concerns of introducing a new gear type
harpoon, handline, rod and reel, and fishing gear will be allowed to freedive, in fisheries with considerable numbers
bandit gear) provided BFT are not in use SCUBA, or other underwater of existing fishermen participating in
possession or retained on board the breathing devices, and will be required exploited fisheries. Since publication of
vessel. However, the vessel must to be physically in the water when they the list of authorized gears and fisheries
possess all applicable and valid Federal fire their speargun. Only free-swimming and the 1999 FMP, spearfishermen have
permits, possess the safe-handling and fish, not those restricted by fishing lines consistently argued for access to HMS
release placard and equipment, and or other means, may be taken. The use fisheries. Spearfishermen have argued
abide by the longline gear restrictions of powerheads, or any other explosive in particular for recreational access to
(e.g., closed areas and circle hooks). If devices, will not be allowed to harvest the Atlantic tuna fishery to target big
a vessel is fishing in a closed area and or subdue BAYS tunas with this gear tuna for the social and recreational
has longline gear on board, it is a type. In addition, spearfishermen will opportunity rather than the desire for
rebuttable presumption that longline be required to abide by all existing economic gain. This rule will prohibit
gear was used to catch any fish on board recreational management measures the sale of Atlantic BAYS tunas
that vessel. Green-stick and rod and reel under the Angling category regulations captured by speargun to minimize the
gear may be utilized on a pelagic when recreationally fishing for BAYS possibility of additional expansion of
longline vessel, so long as all other PLL tunas (i.e., minimum size requirements the user-group to those interested in
management measures are adhered to, of 27 inches curved fork length for BET commercial gain from the activity and
including the use of circle hooks. and YFT, three YFT retention limit per inconsistent with intent of the selected
person per day, as well as all current alternative. Spearguns will not be
i. Spearfishing state and Federal reporting allowed to target BFT, primarily due to
Comment 8: NMFS received requirements). the depleted status of the western
numerous comments supporting the Comment 9: NMFS received several Atlantic stock, uncertainty over the
authorization of speargun gear in the comments that supported spearfishing status of the stock, and continuing poor
recreational Atlantic tuna fishery, gear but requested allowing its performance of the fishery. The use of
spearguns in HMS fisheries other than usually resulting in no bycatch; and CFR Subchapter E and the U.S. Coast
the Atlantic tuna fishery, (i.e., shark, spearfishermen can see the fish and do Guard Navigational Rules), recreational
billfish or swordfish fishery) was not not take unwanted species or vessels must give adequate berth to
considered in the Draft Consolidated undersized fish; and they leave no lines dive-flags in the water and vessels flying
HMS FMP, although as these stocks or other gear on the bottom to snag other diving signals.
improve some additional fishing fish, lobster, or turtles. A few comments Comment 13: NMFS received several
opportunities for new and efficient gear- stated concerns that some spearguns comments on the economic benefits
types may be considered in the future. under this gear type may not have the associated with speargun fishing. These
NMFS considered further restricting capability to land large HMS, resulting comments include: allowing
speargun activity to only free-divers, in a source of unreported mortality and recreational speargun fishing for tuna
(i.e., no SCUBA gear or other types of that spearing a fish that dies without would create an economic boost to
underwater breathing apparatus) to being harvested would be considered coastal communities. When
further limit the universe of bycatch. spearfishing, one would usually fill up
participants. Free-divers were the Response: There are minimal data the car with gas, have lunch, buy
original group of speargun fishermen available to support or refute concerns souvenirs or gear, and sometimes pay
who had requested the opportunity to regarding bycatch by spearguns in the for a boat ride and not spear many fish;
participate in the recreational tuna BAYS fisheries. It is evident that the and, at the 4th Annual Hatteras Blue
fishery. However, it was determined nature of the gear-type can be highly Water Open this year, there were 50
that not allowing SCUBA gear would selective and targeted to specific fish, entrants from all over the world and
have raised additional safety concerns. unlike traditional hook-and-line fishery. eight charter vessels generating $60-
Comment 10: NMFS received several Spearfishermen are unlikely to injure $75,000 in revenue to the area in four
comments regarding aspects of speargun other species such as HMS, sea turtles, days and there would have been more
fishing that would keep participation or marine mammals as they can participants if tunas were included.
and catch low. Those comments selectively target their catch. However, Response: It is expected that allowing
include: technical knowledge barriers it remains unknown how many strikes spearguns into the recreational tuna
for a novice and inexperienced of targeted BAYS may result in fishery will provide an economic benefit
individual that wishes to engage in this mortality and retention versus to the fishery even though the actual
activity; harvesting two or three tunas in wounding and subsequent escape with sale of landed BAYS tuna will be
a lifetime would be lucky because a some unknown proportion mortally
prohibited. Recreational speargun
speargun fisherman needs to know what wounded. Public comment by
fishermen are likely to invest in fishing
they are doing and where to go fishing; spearfishermen states that it is possible
stores and dive-shops for appropriate
there are not a lot of opportunities to to accurately identify species and size
gear and contribute to local economies
learn how to spear BAYS tuna; the cost class before firing the spear and thus the
by renting hotel rooms and chartering
of the equipment including the initial bycatch and mortality of incorrect
vessels or renting equipment, etc.
cost of upgrading spearfishing gear (e.g., species (e.g., BFT) or undersized tuna
larger gun, shafts, spearpoints, floats, (i.e., less than 27 inches) should be Comment 14: NMFS received
lines, and safety items) will exceed minimal. comments stating that if spearfishing
$3,000 and that is before chartering a Comment 12: NMFS received several gear is allowed to harvest Atlantic
vessel; and the need to use a boat to comments regarding potential gear and tunas, then the Agency must devise and
access BAYS fishing grounds. user conflicts that may arise with the implement mandatory permitting,
Response: NMFS acknowledges that authorization of speargun gear such as: reporting, monitoring, and enforcement.
the number of participants using nothing prevents divers from dropping One comment specifically stated that if
spearguns in a recreational BAYS tuna a dive flag in the middle of a group of NMFS cannot guarantee this, there
fishery is likely to be low and the rod and reel vessels or on a specific should not be an additional
number actually encountering and wreck, and driving rod and reel vessels uncontrollable fishery.
successfully striking a BAYS tuna lower off the fish/wreck. In contrast, other Response: All HMS recreational
still. NMFS understands that the commenters noted that spearfishermen spearfishing activity must be conducted
primary intent of allowing the use of and diver interactions with boat traffic from a federally permitted HMS Angling
spearguns in the recreational BAYS tuna should not be an issue in offshore or HMS CHB category vessel. NMFS
fishery is to allow participants the fisheries, as it can be in inshore waters, currently requires mandatory reporting
opportunity and access to the fishery for that the spearfishing community has of all recreational landings of BFT,
the recreational and social benefits it taken as many precautions as possible, swordfish, and billfish via automated
affords. Successful participation would and that no accidents have occurred in telephone systems. Although the
still mean adequate preparation and/or New Hampshire or Rhode Island where Agency does not currently have similar
possible training (e.g., dive certificate) speargun fishing gear is currently requirements for recreational landings
and the correct equipment. However, allowed in state waters when targeting of BAYS tunas, NMFS monitors HMS
willing participants will no longer be striped bass. recreational effort and landings through
prohibited by regulation from using Response: Speargun users and rod- Federal recreational surveys, such as the
spearguns in the recreational BAYS and-reel recreational fishermen will MRFSS and LPS in addition to State
fishery. need to respect each other’s activities monitoring programs. NMFS
Comment 11: NMFS received and safety when sharing the same enforcement works in cooperation with
comments related to the level of bycatch fishing grounds to avoid gear and user local and State enforcement programs to
associated with speargun fishing. Those conflicts. Speargun fishermen will ensure compliance with management
comments include: most recreational likely choose fishing areas and tuna measures in both recreational and
fishermen practice catch-and-release hunting grounds away from other rod- commercial fisheries. NMFS will
fishing, but speargun fishermen practice and-reel vessels to maximize the diver’s monitor compliance with reporting
release-and-catch fishing; speargun recreational opportunity and minimize requirements and may consider
fishermen are very selective about the safety concerns. Likewise, under modifications to requirements, as
fish being targeted and use one shot, existing vessel safety regulations (see 33 appropriate, in the future.
Comment 15: NMFS received a vessels when targeting BAYS should be the past and should be allowed to be
comment stating that there are approved. In contrast, NMFS received continued; in North Carolina, green-
fishermen currently using spearguns to several comments opposed to stick gear has been used to catch BFT;
harvest YFT that do not realize it is authorizing green-stick gear for tunas. past BFT landings using this gear type
illegal to use the gear to target Atlantic The GMFMC commented that green- have been reported as rod-and-reel
tunas. Spearfishing has been included stick gear is classified as longline gear therefore a group of individuals are
as a category in some of the in the Gulf of Mexico and if it is going to be adversely impacted if BFT
tournaments. authorized, it is likely to become very are not allowed; this rule will make it
Response: Until the final rule abundant and could have a negative even harder to catch the BFT quota; and,
authorizing recreational speargun impact on stressed and overfished curiosity as to what conservation
fishing for BAYS tunas takes effect, any stocks; green-stick gear is an excuse for benefits are to be had by not allowing
use of spearguns to fish for any HMS is more longline fishing using a slightly BFT to be retained as there are other
illegal. The list of authorized gears has different method; and green-stick gear is management measures in place for BFT
been published since the end of 1999 similar to longline gear and therefore such as size and retention limits as well
(December 1, 1999; 64 FR 67511) and should not be allowed into closed areas. as quotas. One comment stated support
numerous brochures and guides that Response: This rule will not provide for General category fishermen to target
have been published since that date a regulatory definition of ‘‘green-stick BFT with green-stick. The same
clearly specifying the authorized gears gear’’ as a separate authorized gear and commenter only supported the
for HMS with valid permits. Currently, as differentiated from already authorized use of green-sticks by
speargun gear is not an authorized gear authorized forms of handgear (rod-and- longline permitted vessels as an allowed
for any HMS. After the effective date of reel or handline) and longline gear. This gear for directed YFT fishing and did
this final rule, speargun gear will be is a change from what was proposed. not support the use of green-sticks by
legal for BAYS tunas, but not for other Under existing regulations, green-stick pelagic longline fishermen to target BFT
HMS. gear is already authorized depending on while aboard a permitted pelagic
Comment 16: NMFS should not allow how it is configured and how many longline vessel.
another directed commercial fishery hooks are on each line. Due to the
(e.g., speargun fishing gear) for giant Response: Throughout the
current confusion over what is already
BFT. development of the Draft Consolidated
allowed and how the draft preferred
Response: This rule does not HMS FMP, most of the analysis and
alternative may or may not have
authorize another directed commercial changed current uses of green-stick gear, comment from scoping led the Agency
fishery for giant BFT. It does not NMFS is not modifying the list of to determine that green-stick gear was
authorize the use of spearguns to fish authorized gears for green-stick gear at primarily used to target BAYS tunas and
for, retain, or land any Atlantic BFT, in this time. In addition to the existing that the methods of fishing with the gear
either the recreational or commercial confusion and the potential to were not conducive to targeting BFT. In
fishery. exacerbate the situation by changing the addition, due to the current severely
Comment 17: Speargun fishermen regulations, there is conflicting opinion depleted status of the BFT stock, the
would want to target the largest fish and little data to support or refute its introduction of a new gear-type and
available due to the difficulty in taking efficiency and impact on target and non- adding fishing pressure in this already
smaller fish, the trophy nature of the target stocks. NMFS intends to publish heavily capitalized fishery is not
fishery itself, and the largest take for a brochure clarifying acceptable appropriate at this time. Thus, it was
time and money invested in the configuration of green-stick gear under determined in the Draft Consolidated
opportunity. the existing HMS regulations. In the HMS FMP that it was possible to
Response: NMFS recognizes that a meantime, NMFS will also work with consider the use of green-stick gear, in
prime motivation for spearfishermen to current logbook and monitoring a manner that modified the status quo,
enter the Atlantic BAYS tuna fishery is programs to examine ways to collect for a BAYS only fishery. Furthermore, it
the opportunity to recreationally fish for additional information on the use of was determined that excluding BFT
a big fish. Spearfishermen will need to green-stick gear and its impact on the from the allowed list of target species
abide by all existing recreational environment as well as its social and would provide marginal positive
management measures, including the economic benefits and consequences. economic and social impacts to the
minimum size for YFT and BET of 27 Comment 19: NMFS received BAYS fishery with neutral biological
inches curved fork length and retention numerous comments in support of impacts to the BFT stock. However, at
limits. There is no minimum size for authorizing green-stick gear for targeting several public meetings on the Draft
albacore or skipjack tuna. Blackfin tuna BFT, as well as BAYS. These comments Consolidated HMS FMP and in written
are not federally regulated. include: green-sticks are permanently comment, particularly from the mid-
attached to the vessel, so why do the Atlantic area, it was evident that there
ii. Green-Stick Gear proposed regulations state that a vessel is an active interest in using the gear to
Comment 18: NMFS received several could never possess a BFT onboard if target BFT. The preferred alternative in
comments supporting the preferred green-stick gear is onboard; green-stick the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP could
alternative to authorize green-stick gear gear is the same as the trolling fishery, have eliminated this opportunity
for the commercial BAYS tuna fishery. meaning the same boats, same gear, and allowed under the status quo, provided
These comments include: green-stick same permits are used as those used to the gear is configured to conform to the
gear is much better than longlines and target BFT; the Japanese use this gear to current regulations. For BFT fishing,
could be an alternate gear; green-stick harvest BFT because minimal lactic these conditions exist generally when
gear is the most environmentally sound acids build during the fight; green-stick commercial fishing for BFT in the
way to harvest tuna; if green-stick gear gear should be allowed for all Atlantic General category (or with an HMS CHB
is a viable U.S. HMS fishery, then tunas provided there are mandatory permit) using handgear (rod-and-reel,
NMFS needs to be flexible in allowing permitting, reporting, monitoring, and handline, or bandit gear) with two
its use; and, the use of green-stick gear enforcement of this fishery; BFT have hooks or less. These conditions also
for directed fishing by pelagic longline been harvested using green-stick gear in exist when recreationally fishing for
BFT in the Angling category (or with an different from the definition of a restrictions, specific additional
HMS CHB permit) using handgear (rod- longline gear; green-stick is similar to management measures may apply to the
and-reel or handline) with two hooks or longline gear therefore it should be use of gear depending on the targeted
less. The limit on the number of hooks prevented from entering into closed fishery and HMS or tuna vessel permits
for both recreational and commercial areas; this gear is still a longline because (i.e., 50 CFR part 635 subpart C, as well
handgear has helped limit effort in of the use of hydraulics and several as general permitting, recordkeeping,
currently overcapitalized fisheries hooks; there are two distinct types of and monitoring requirements at 50 CFR
targeting species with weak stock status green-stick fishing and each should be part 635 subpart A).
(i.e., either overfished or approaching carefully defined separately; the Comment 21: NMFS received several
overfishing). Furthermore, the commercial green-stick method uses comments and questions noting the
incidental retention of BFT by green- multiple hooks with artificial baits on a level of confusion regarding what
stick gear, trailing more than two hooks, single line to catch Atlantic tunas, constitutes the technical nature of
is authorized under a Longline category including BFT; the recreational green- ‘‘green-stick’’ gear, and how it can
permit so long as all other sticking is an ‘‘angling’’ method already be used versus modified by the
corresponding management measures primarily using rods-and-reels to catch proposed alternative. Comments
are adhered to such as target catch Atlantic tunas, including BFT; some include: the definition of ‘‘longline
restrictions, use of circle hooks, recreational gear is being pulled with gear’’ is the problem, not ‘‘green-stick
avoidance of closed areas, etc. more than two hooks per line; teasers gear’’; over one hundred green-sticks
Since the publication of the Draft without hooks should be allowed; the have been sold and you need to change
Consolidated HMS FMP in August 2005, definition should include using no more the definition; it is not the stick that is
NMFS received data on the performance than two hooks per any single line the most important part of this gear,
of both the recreational and commercial attached to the green-stick that basically rather the suspended bait attracts the
BFT fishery. In the case of the acts as a vertical out-rigger; green-stick fish, not the number of baits; fishermen
commercial fishery, landings were low gear should be restricted to hand can use only one rod due to tangling;
throughout the 2005 fishing season. The powered reels; green-stick gear is also green-sticks are permanently attached to
2005 season was also marked by a appropriate for use in the Angling and the vessel; green-stick gear is used to
noticeable lack of availability of General category fisheries; and, catch larger tuna, and that the gear is
commercial sized BFT throughout their recreational fishermen using green-stick set-up vertically allowing the bait to fish
traditional fishing range and, in gear could open up illegal commercial
particular, BFT were largely absent off further from the vessel; we support the
sale opportunities. use of green-stick gear by commercial
southern states during the winter of
2005/2006. Although the available quota Response: NMFS notes that there are vessels, but only if restricted to hand
in the commercial size classes is high, considerable similarities between the powered reels, but not if used with
scientists continue to be concerned over use of green-stick gear and recreational electric or hydraulic reels; this trolling
the status of this stock, especially the and commercial handgear as well as method does not require any large
abundance of these larger fish that longline gear depending on how green- device and is easy to set up on a small
represent the potential spawners for stick gear is configured and used under vessel and it is used to catch BFT and
future recruitment, particularly in the current definitions at 50 CFR parts 600 YFT around the world; the name
Gulf of Mexico. An international stock and 635 and in accordance with all gear ‘‘green-stick’’ comes from the original
assessment on the current status, and operation and deployment restrictions color of the pole, but today it is
future prognosis, of BFT is scheduled at 50 CFR 635.21. ‘‘Longline’’ means available in a variety of colors; and, as
this year by the SCRS and new fishing gear that is set horizontally, green-stick gear is permanently attached
recommendations, if any, by ICCAT either anchored, floating, or attached to to the vessel there could be enforcement
would not be available until November a vessel, and that consists of a mainline issues as the gear can be configured
2006. NMFS will continue to analyze or groundline with three or more leaders either as commercial or recreational.
potential impacts of authorizing green- (gangions) and hooks, whether retrieved Questions include: what permit would
stick gear and may consider by hand or mechanical means. Any be required to use this gear; would live
modifications in the future, as hook and line gear with three or more bait be allowed with this gear; will
appropriate. hooks is considered to be a longline. In configuration of the gear use rods and
Comment 20: NMFS received several addition to the use of rods and reels, reels or hydraulic drum, how would one
comments regarding the technical ‘‘handline gear’’ means fishing gear that know the type of gear used to catch the
nature of green-stick gear including consists of a mainline to which no more fish if different gear types are allowed
comments comparing and contrasting than two leaders (gangions) with hooks on the same vessel but not authorized to
the gear type to longline gear and are attached, and that is released and land the same species; is there a length
commercial or recreational handgear retrieved by hand, rather than by limit on a rod and reel to distinguish it
such as handline and rod-and-reel. mechanical means. Finally, the use of from green-stick gear; what does it
Comments included: green-stick gear is bandit gear and downriggers is also an matter how many hooks are on the line
very different from longline gear in that authorized means of deploying and when operating under a General
when deploying green-stick gear the retrieving the hook and line. ‘‘Bandit category permit; if we have longline and
greatest distance the hooks are from the gear’’ means vertical hook and line gear incidental BFT permits can we use
boat is 500 feet, whereas PLL gear has with rods that are attached to the vessel green-stick gear; how do the incidental
one hook a football field length away when in use. Lines are retrieved by limits apply to longline vessels using
from one another; longline gear is set in manual, electric or hydraulic reels. A green-stick gear; under the current
the water column with many hooks ‘‘downrigger’’ is a piece of equipment regulations, what permit would be
while green-stick is trolled at a high attached to a vessel and with a weight required for someone who fishes with
speed with the artificial baits suspended on a cable that is in turn attached to green-stick gear for YFT; which will
above or skipping across the waters hook-and-line gear to maintain lures or have more hooks - green-stick gear or
surface; this gear is trolled and is not set bait at depth while trolling. In addition recreational gear; can green-stick gear
out to drift, which makes it very to the above definitions and gear fish in the closed areas; do the reporting
requirements for General category or longline gear. As a first step, NMFS available to analyze the bycatch issues
permit holders call for reporting the gear intends to publish a brochure to clarify associated with green-stick gear
employed; would green-stick fishermen current allowable uses of the gear and deployed as a form of handgear or as a
be able to use live bait as it is proposed how existing vessel and dealer permit longline. NMFS expects that trolled
currently; in which fishery can the gear and reporting requirements apply. green-stick gear, configured as a version
be authorized; is green-stick gear NMFS also intends to examine whether of rod-and-reel handgear, would have
currently used in the Gulf; and can it be or not existing monitoring programs bycatch issues similar to that of
used at all in the Gulf of Mexico where should be modified to understand more conventionally configured rod-and-reel
BFT cannot be targeted since it is a adequately the uses and impacts of this gear. Data from Pacific green-stick
spawning area? gear or whether some additional fisheries indicate that increases in
Response: NMFS acknowledges that program is necessary, including billfish bycatch are possible although no
there is considerable confusion over the potential use of the EFP program. The billfish were reported caught on green-
status of green-stick in the HMS North Carolina Sea Grant paper stick gear in Atlantic commercial
fisheries under current management published by Westcott, 1996, contains fisheries. Under the current regulations,
measures. NMFS intends to publish a historical and background data on the use of green-stick gear is allowed (as
brochure to clarify the current situation. green-stick gear that NMFS used to clarified in the response to Comment 21
This rule will maintain the current define and graphically present different and elsewhere in this document) in the
definitions for use of longline gear in ways to configure the gear. NMFS Gulf of Mexico although it may not be
the longline fishery and handgear in the would appreciate assistance in locating used to target BFT in this area to protect
commercial General category, the more recent updates and/or publications spawning BFT. NMFS continues to be
recreational HMS Angling, and the HMS that could be used to assist with the concerned about levels of bycatch in
CHB fishery. Thus, the use of green- development of the planned brochure HMS fisheries as well as in other
stick gear is still allowed as in the past describing green-stick gear. NMFS is fisheries that encounter HMS as
and in conformance with the interested in knowing how many bycatch. Overall, the Agency has
appropriate management measures and fishermen use, or have used, this gear continued to address bycatch issues in
existing reporting requirements for these and in what configurations that conform federally managed fisheries and,
HMS fisheries. No new regulatory with or differ from the current consistent with National Standard 9, to
definitions or permits are being definitions. In addition, NMFS is implement management measures that
implemented at this time. Green-stick interested in the locale and distribution minimize bycatch. Since 1999, NMFS
gear can be used in any configuration so of its use, preferred target species, has implemented a number of time/area
long as it conforms to current definition efficiency over other gear-types, closures to reduce bycatch to the extent
of the use of longline or hook-and-line amounts and rates of bycatch, and social practicable and, in the Draft
handgear as currently defined in the and economic costs and benefits of Consolidated HMS FMP, examined
regulations, and as described in the using the gear, among other things. numerous alternatives to determine if
response to Comment 20 above. Comment 23: NMFS received the closures were still meeting their
Comment 22: NMFS received several comments on the bycatch associated original goals. Many of these measures,
comments regarding the need for with green-stick gear. Those comments but not all, were designed to reduce
additional data regarding this gear-type. include: almost all tuna are hooked in bycatch in the pelagic longline fleet. In
One comment stated the fishery needs the mouth and could be released addition, the Draft Consolidated HMS
further analysis on the use and relatively unharmed, there are no turtle FMP examined alternatives to train and
configuration of green-stick gear and interactions, and other bycatch is certify fishermen in the safe handling,
one commenter questioned what limited because billfish and shark release, and disentanglement of
information would NMFS need species have difficulty reaching bait that protected resources from pelagic and
collected to conduct a more detailed spends so much time in the air; and, bottom longline and gillnet gear. With
analysis of the impacts of using this green-stick gear is a gear that minimizes the addition of new measures in the
gear. A comment stated that there needs the interactions of billfish with Final Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS
to be some accommodation of this gear commercial handgear and should be expects to continue minimizing bycatch
type, even if it is through an EFP to promoted. Other comments noted a throughout HMS fisheries.
collect further information. A comment need to be cautious about potential
stated that the information used from bycatch issues and that NMFS needs to iii. Buoy Gear
the North Carolina Sea Grant paper confirm the level of bycatch associated Comment 24: NMFS received several
referenced in the Draft Consolidated with this gear type; NMFS needs to comments supporting alternative H5,
HMS FMP is out of date and that the prohibit this gear’s use in the Gulf of which would authorize the use of buoy
gear has been altered as individuals Mexico due to potential bluefin tuna gear only in the commercial swordfish
have gained experience using it. bycatch; the description of green-stick handgear fishery. Some of those
Response: NMFS agrees that the gear sounds like longline gear, which comments include: buoy gear should be
Agency and the fishery could benefit could mean greater bycatch and there for commercial use and handlines for
from additional data on the use of green- should be no additional gear used in the recreational use; more recreational
stick gear and its impact on both the Gulf of Mexico; and, we are opposed to fishermen are currently using buoy gear
recreational and commercial green-stick gear because it appears to be than commercial fishermen; buoy gear
constituencies, HMS stocks, and a trolled longline and the biggest should be used to target swordfish
bycatch. In the past, green-stick gear bycatch of marlin is in the yellowfin because it is an effective gear; I do not
was identified as a unique gear type on tuna fishery. support the use of recreational buoy
HMS Vessel Pelagic Logbook reports, Response: This rule will not modify gear, but it should be a commercial
but was discontinued as it was not a the regulations to define ‘‘green-stick subcategory; buoy gear should be
uniquely identified and defined gear. It gear’’ and thus NMFS does not expect allowed, but not where it will conflict
also appears that fishermen had already the levels of bycatch to change as a with recreational vessels and gear; and
been reporting green-stick HMS result of implementing the No Action this alternative is trying to establish a
landings under either hook and line gear alternative. NMFS has minimal data commercial fishery. Pelagic longline
vessels could remove their longline gear Response: As discussed in the require that handlines be attached to, or
and set buoy gear in closed areas. Consolidated HMS FMP, this gear type in contact with, a vessel. The buoy gear
Response: Free-floating buoyed lines is currently in use as handline gear and alternatives will not be affected by the
are currently in use in many areas; anecdotal information suggests that it is handline definition change as the
however, they are being fished as being used by both commercial and selected buoy gear alternative defines
‘‘handline gear,’’ as defined by current recreational fishermen to target buoy gear as a separate gear type.
HMS regulations. Currently, there are no swordfish as well as other species. The Comment 27: NMFS received a few
limits on how many handlines a vessel rule will re-name the gear to buoy gear, comments opposed to alternative H6,
may deploy, as long as each gear has no limit its use to only those vessels authorize buoy gear in the commercial
more than two hooks attached. NMFS permitted to participate in the limited swordfish handgear fishery and limit
heard during scoping that the use of this access commercial swordfish handgear vessels to no more than 50 individual
gear was expanding. This rule will fishery, and significantly limit the buoys, each supporting a single
change the definition of handline gear to number of individual gears that vessels mainline with no more than 15 hooks or
require that the gear be attached to a could possess or deploy (from an gangions attached. These comments
vessel and allow free-floating handlines, unrestricted number to a maximum of include: we do not support alternative
renamed as buoy gear, to be utilized in 35). This action will ensure that the H6; and alternative H6 is mini-
the swordfish handgear fishery only. fishery, which currently occurs mainly longlining and should be limited to
NMFS took this action, in part, to limit in a known swordfish nursery area, does vessels with all three permits (Directed
the number of individual gears a vessel not expand in effort uncontrollably and or Incidental Swordfish, Atlantic Tunas
may possess or deploy when targeting that only a manageable number of buoy Longline, and Directed or Incidental
swordfish commercially and eliminate gears may be deployed by each vessel. Shark).
the use of the gear in all other HMS Consistent with the current definition of Response: The Agency is not selecting
fisheries, both recreational and ‘‘handline gear,’’ each buoy gear will be alternative H6 due, in part, to the
commercial. Vessels with directed limited to having no more than two comments in opposition to allowing that
swordfish or swordfish handgear LAPs hooks or gangions attached. Vessels many free floating buoy gears. In this
may utilize this gear type to capture deploying buoy gear may use live or action, the Agency is selecting a
swordfish in pelagic longline closed dead baits and may only retain modification of alternative H5 which
areas as long as the longline gear had swordfish captured on the gear. All will authorize buoy gear for the
been removed from the vessel. tunas, undersized swordfish, sharks, commercial swordfish handgear fishery
Comment 25: NMFS received several marlins, or sailfish captured on buoy and limit vessels to possessing or
comments opposed to alternative H5, gear must be released in a manner that deploying no more than 35 floatation
which would authorize buoy gear for maximizes their probability of survival. devices, with each gear consisting of
the commercial swordfish handgear This gear differs significantly from one or more floatation devices
fishery and limit vessels to possessing longline gear, which is defined as supporting a single mainline with no
or deploying no more than 35 having three or more hooks or gangions more than two hooks or gangions
individual buoys, with each gear attached. The rule will allow vessels attached. This gear differs significantly
deployed consisting of one buoy deploying this gear type to use multiple from longline gear, which is defined as
supporting a single mainline with no floatation/gear marking devices, having three or more hooks or gangions
more than two hooks or gangions including but not limited to, buoys, attached. Fishermen deploying buoy
attached. The comments include: buoy floats, lights, radar reflectors, reflective gear must possess a commercial
gear is needless and would be harmful tape, and high-flyers, to minimize any swordfish handgear or a swordfish
to recreational interests; recreational hazards to navigation. Logbook data directed limited access permit.
fishermen are concerned about the use from 2004 show that 68 percent of Comment 28: NMFS received a
of this gear type; buoy gear would swordfish captured on commercial number of comments regarding buoy
increase fishing effort on swordfish handline trips were retained. These gear capturing undersized swordfish,
when it is still overfished; opening up same data show that over 75 percent of including: 35 individual buoys fished at
the buoy fishery to fill the quota is a swordfish discarded from these trips one time is in direct conflict with the
mistake; buoy gear is indiscriminate and were released alive. NMFS monitors HMS FMP objective to reduce bycatch
destructive and has no place in a gears for interactions with marine and to minimize mortality of juvenile
sustainable, viable fishery; buoy gear is mammals and sea turtles and will swordfish; this alternative will produce
nothing more than a vertical longline continue to monitor buoy gear catch, dead juvenile swordfish that are hooked
and we need reductions in bycatch or bycatch, and any interactions with and not successfully released due to lost
bycatch mortality. We are opposed to protected resources though the HMS gear or gear that cannot be checked in
any fishing that allows unattended gear; logbook program. a timely manner; what studies show the
buoy gear should not be allowed in the Comment 26: If handgear must be successful release of juvenile swordfish
HMS fisheries for numerous reasons, attached to the vessel, how do the buoy when using 35 individual buoys with
including: a hazard to navigation; an gear requirements affect alternative H5, two hooks?; buoy gear fishermen
indiscriminate killer like longlines; and which authorizes buoy gear in the currently catch approximately 25 - 30
deployment of the gear with live baits commercial swordfish handgear fishery, percent juvenile swordfish (< 33
will increase discards and dead discards and limits vessels employing buoy gear inches); circle hooks can reduce post
of numerous species; if buoy gear use to possessing and deploying no more release mortality of juvenile swordfish
continues, it is probable that the gear than 35 individual buoys, with each and non-targeted species, they should
will interact with marine mammals in buoy having no more than two hooks or be considered for this gear; and, about
the U.S. EEZ; and it is morally gangions attached? 50 percent of fish caught on well tended
incomprehensible that NMFS is going to Response: Handgear (handline, buoy gear can be released.
shut down the recreational white marlin harpoon, rod and reel, and bandit gear) Response: In response to public
fishery and yet allow thousands of are not all currently required to be comment, the Agency has modified the
hooks to be deployed with live baits on attached to a vessel. This final rule will draft preferred alternative to allow buoy
buoy gears. modify the definition of handline to gear fishermen the option of deploying
multiple floatation devices on conditions; while the handgear operator identification buoy/hi-flier; additional
individual buoy gears. The final rule is retrieving a buoy that has hooked a equipment may be necessary to prevent
will maintain the maximum limit of 35 swordfish of sustainable size, the other large swordfish from sounding; allow
floatation devices possessed or 34 buoys will not be attended; there are additional gear at each buoy for retrieval
deployed. Under this rule, fishermen no minimum requirements for flags, and to determine if a fish is on the line;
who fish three floatation devices per radar reflectors, radio beacons, or strobe why is there no length or distance
gear will be limited to deploying lights; and is there any information specified between buoys for the
approximately 11 individual buoy gears. about the loss of buoys? commercial buoy gear?; do the
Similarly, fishermen using four Response: In response to public regulations stipulate how far apart the
floatation devices per gear will be comment, the Agency has modified the buoy gear can be spaced?; are buoy gears
limited to deploying approximately draft preferred alternative to allow buoy allowed to be attached to a hydraulic
eight buoy gears. Logbook data from gear fishermen the option of deploying drum when being used commercially?;
2004 show that 68 percent of swordfish multiple floatation devices on circle hooks, VMS, light sticks, live bait,
captured on commercial handline trips individual buoy gears. The final rule and Careful Handling/Release training
were retained. These same data show will maintain the maximum limit of 35 and certification should be mandatory;
that over 75 percent of swordfish floatation devices possessed or could you require the use of Global
discarded from these trips were released deployed. Under the modified Positioning Systems (GPS) on the buoy
alive. Given the fact that this fishery alternative, fishermen who fish three gear?; there should be a prohibition on
currently happens in a swordfish floatation devices per gear will be using live bait; an electronic monitoring
nursery area, it is likely that the limited to deploying approximately 11 system must be required for each buoy;
swordfish that are discarded are done so individual buoy gears. Similarly, there is no data to justify limitations on
because they are undersized. fishermen using four floatation devices the number of buoys and/or hooks at
Commenters requested the ability to use per gear will be limited to deploying this time; and there is no criteria for
several floatation devices per gear to approximately eight buoy gears. If a gear what would constitute an acceptable
allow for the use of a ‘‘bite indicator’’ monitoring device used by a fisherman buoy for this type of gear.
float, which will let fishermen know is positively buoyant, it will be included
Response: As discussed above in the
when a fish is captured by the gear. This in the 35 floatation device vessel limit.
response to Comments 27, 28, and 29,
modification could allow fishermen to Consistent with current regulations,
NMFS has modified the draft preferred
easily identify those gears that have each floatation device attached to a
buoy gear must be marked with either alternative in response to public
captured fish and may allow fishermen comment and included a definition of
to release any undersized swordfish or the vessel’s name, registration number,
or permit number. At this time, NMFS ‘‘floatation device.’’ The final rule will
non-target species more quickly and allow fishermen deploying buoy gear to
with a greater probability of survival. is not requiring any specific gear
tending requirements for vessels attach multiple floatation devices to
Additionally, the modification to allow each buoy gear, including ‘‘bite
multiple floatation devices per gear may deploying buoy gear; however, the
Agency recommends that fishermen indicator floats,’’ however the rule will
reduce the number of gears deployed maintain the limit of 35 floatation
and may minimize lost gear by making remain in the general area where they
have set their gear and monitor each devices possessed or deployed. A
the gears more buoyant and visible. floatation device is defined as any
gear as closely as possible. NMFS
Although the Agency received public positively buoyant object rigged to be
realizes that different vessels and crews
comment supporting the use of circle attached to a fishing gear. Buoy gear
will have varying abilities to monitor
hooks with buoy gear, a circle hook must be released and retrieved by hand.
gear and that weather and sea condition
option was not specifically included in If gear monitoring devices used by
may also impact their ability to monitor
the alternatives in the Draft fishermen are positively buoyant and
gear closely. The Agency cautions
Consolidated HMS FMP. NMFS is rigged to be attached to a fishing gear,
fishermen to limit the number of gears
considering the utility of circle hooks they will be included in the 35
they deploy to a reasonable number that
throughout HMS fisheries and may floatation device vessel limit and will
they can realistically monitor and
analyze a circle hook requirement for need to be marked as per the gear
retrieve safely. At this time, the Agency
buoy gear in a future rulemaking. does not possess any data regarding gear marking regulations. Additionally, if
Comment 29: NMFS received a few loss in this fishery. The Agency may more than one floatation device is used,
comments related to the monitoring conduct additional rulemaking in the no hook or gangion may be attached to
requirements for buoy gear. Such future, if additional data indicates that the mainline or a floatation device on
comments include: can fishermen use gear tending requirements or other the horizontal portion of the gear. At
additional locating devices in addition bycatch reduction measures are needed. this time, NMFS is not specifying any
to the single buoy required (e.g., high Comment 30: NMFS received a maximum or minimum length of
flier to locate the buoy in bigger seas) to number of comments regarding the horizontal line at the surface. However,
improve monitoring?; all four methods definition of ‘‘buoy gear,’’ including: to limit any hazard to navigation and
of marking buoy gear are needed to consider modifying the definition of potential gear loss by ship strike, NMFS
avoid lost fish and gear; there should buoy gear because one buoy and all the recommends that fishermen set only the
definitely be a requirement for marking line fished vertically will make it amount of gear that is needed at the
and monitoring; a visual radius or difficult to keep visual contact with the surface. Similarly, NMFS is not
reasonable area a fisherman could fish gear; without some way of knowing specifying a minimum or maximum
with buoy gear should be defined; buoy when a small fish is hooked, it may be distance between deployed buoy gears.
gear ‘‘tending’’ requirements should be several hours before the gear is NMFS urges fishermen to be responsible
defined, like in the shark gillnet fishery, retrieved; consider allowing a maximum in their fishing activities and to only
to prevent fishermen from tending of 20 feet of horizontal line on the fish gear over a distance that they can
buoys that belong to others; it would be surface for the purpose of identifying realistically monitor. Because of the
impossible to monitor all 35 buoys that and monitoring buoy gear allowing limitations on the number of buoy gears
are free floating in rough weather space for ‘‘bite indicator’’ float and an that can be deployed at one time, NMFS
is not requiring GPS or electronic vessels using this gear to possess spare more than 35 floatation devices, with
monitoring equipment at this time. gear onboard. Furthermore, as described each gear consisting of one or more
Given the low bycatch rates and high in the response to Comments 29 and 30, floatation devices supporting a single
probability of survival per logbook data NMFS modified the definition to allow mainline with no more than two hooks
on handline, NMFS is not implementing for multiple floatation devices per or gangions attached. As discussed
requirements regarding circle hooks, individual buoy gear. This upper limit above in the response to Comments 27
light sticks, live bait, or Careful should provide flexibility and allow for - 30, the modified alternative will allow
Handling/Release training and the use of ‘‘bite indicator’’ floats by most fishermen deploying buoy gear to attach
certification for buoy gear fishermen at fishermen using this gear. multiple floatation devices to each buoy
this time. As more information and data Comment 33: NMFS received a gear, including ‘‘bite indicator’’ floats,
become available regarding the use of number of comments on the proposed however the alternative maintains the
buoy gear, NMFS may investigate some limit of 35 buoys, including: tending 35 limit of 35 floatation devices possessed
of these options for the buoy gear buoys will be inefficient, taking 2 - 2.5 or deployed. This rule gives greater
fishery in future rulemakings. hours to set 35 buoys and 3 - 3.5 hours flexibility in the gear configuration by
Comment 31: NMFS received a few to check each one; no more than 12 allowing fishermen to alter the gear
comments regarding permit buoys should be allowed when depending on weather or sea conditions,
requirements for using buoy gear and operating alone; with two crew crew size, and characteristics of
comments supporting a limit on the members, up to 20 buoys could be different fishing vessels. If gear
number of vessels using buoy gear. fished; can the number of permissible monitoring devices used by fishermen
These comments include: buoy gear buoys be linked to people onboard the are positively buoyant and rigged to be
should be limited to current permit vessel; participants currently cannot attached to a fishing gear, they will be
holders only and no increase in its use fish 35 buoys but may be able to in the included in the 35 floatation device
should be allowed in future permit future; 35 buoys with two hooks apiece vessel limit and will need to be marked
considerations; what kind of permit do is almost like hauling a 30 mile longline in accordance with the gear marking
you need for buoy gear?; buoy gear users with the current; define and allow this regulations. Additionally, if more than
should have the three permits that PLL gear type for swordfish commercial one floatation device is used, no hook
needs; approximately 10 boats have harvest, but limit the number of buoys or gangion may be attached to the
used buoy gear in the past, however, it to a more manageable number for mainline or a floatation device on the
is now likely that only about three protection of juvenile swordfish, horizontal portion of the gear. Under the
vessels use this gear type; how many allowing no more than 10 buoys makes final rule, fishermen who fish three
participants are actively using buoy the gear maintainable and produces a floatation devices per gear will be
gear?; and, how many swordfish permits high quality product with minimal limited to deploying approximately 11
are there? Effort is going to increase. impact on juvenile fish; 35 buoys are individual buoy gears. Similarly,
Response: The final rule will only unmanageable and are tended exactly fishermen using four floatation devices
authorize buoy gear in the commercial like a short pelagic longline with per gear will be limited to deploying
swordfish handgear fishery. Vessels overnight soak time violating the intent approximately eight individual buoy
deploying buoy gear must have a of the area closure; 10 to 12 buoys with gears. NMFS realizes that different sized
commercial swordfish handgear limited a maximum of two hooks is the most vessels and crews will have varying
access permit or a swordfish directed that should be allowed, a prudent abilities to monitor gear and that
limited access permit. As of February skipper and crew could not manage
weather and sea conditions may also
2006, there were 88 commercial more than 10 buoys at a time and that
affect their ability to monitor gear
swordfish handgear permits and 191 would be under ideal sea conditions;
directed swordfish permits. In 2004, closely. The Agency cautions fishermen
The regulations should allow a
seven vessels reported using handline to limit the number of buoy gears they
maximum of 10 to 12 buoys, otherwise
gear in the HMS logbook. The logbook deploy to a reasonable number that can
bycatch cannot be prevented; 35 buoys
does not differentiate between trolled be realistically monitored and retrieved
with two hooks each is not considered
handlines, free-floating handlines, or safely. NMFS realizes that the limits on
‘‘handgear’’; and, 35 buoys are far too
attached handlines; however, some of buoy gear will likely reduce the chances
many and may allow bigger vessels from
those seven vessels likely fished free- that large distant water vessels could
the NED to move in and use this gear
floating handlines (buoy gear) and in closed areas, this shift could create make profitable trips with buoy gear.
targeted swordfish. Based on historic tension between user groups and, During the scoping process, the Agency
participation and new restrictions, displace the smaller vessels that received comments indicating that the
NMFS does not anticipate large pioneered this type of gear. This already swordfish handgear fishery does not
increases in participation in this sector happened in the FEC area with a boat appear to be widespread and appears to
of the swordfish fishery. using 20 - 25 radio buoys; 35 buoys are operate off the East Coast of Florida. The
Comment 32: NMFS received two unmanageable; more than 12 buoys are final rule was developed in an attempt
comments inquiring about 35 buoys as unmanageable. The definition of this to maintain positive economic benefits
the appropriate limit for buoy gear. gear should be by the drop line, not the for the commercial sector currently
These comments are: what is the basis number of buoys; pelagic longline utilizing the gear type.
for selecting 35 buoys as the limit?; and, fishermen would need more than 35 Comment 34: NMFS received a
how did the Agency select 35 buoys? buoys to make a go of the buoy fishery; number of comments opposed to
Response: NMFS selected the 35 and there is no data that shows a limit authorizing buoy gear and the use of
floatation limit based on support from on buoy gear is needed. buoy gear in pelagic longline closed
public comment and because the Response: In response to public areas. Those comments include: the
Agency identified this number as the comment, the Agency is selecting a proposed buoy gear would operate in a
upper limit of unattended buoy gear that modification of alternative H5 that will manner similar to longline gear. Do not
a commercial fisherman could monitor authorize buoy gear for the commercial reopen the longline fishery to further
and prevent from being lost. The 35 swordfish handgear fishery and limit commercial exploitation in our waters;
floatation limit would also allow most vessels to possessing or deploying no buoy gear is proposed for use in areas
currently closed to longline gear; this necessary off Florida, but there might be utilize the gear type relative to the status
commercial gear violates the intent and possibilities in other areas where limits quo. In addition, the requirement to
purpose of closed areas and the basic are not needed. affix gear monitoring equipment is
reason these areas were originally Response: As discussed in the intended to reduce the likelihood of
created; how do these new proposed response to Comment 34 above, the final gear loss. Additionally, under the final
gears mesh with the current closed rule will restrict the number of rule, buoy gear will only be authorized
areas?; longline fishermen are by far the unattached handlines or buoy gear that to harvest swordfish, no other HMS
most indiscriminate killers of the very may be deployed and will limit the species may be targeted with buoy gear.
species that recreational fishermen and number of permit holders authorized to All other HMS species captured must be
conservation groups try to protect. Yet, utilize the gear type relative to the status released in a manner that maximizes
they are being allowed back into closed quo. This gear is currently authorized their probability of survival. NMFS will
areas and are allowed to continue using for use with no limitations on numbers monitor bycatch and gear loss, and may
longline tackle that has been renamed; of buoy gears deployed by both make adjustments, as needed, in the
these areas were closed to PLL and recreational and commercial fishermen future. While the owners and operators
allowing buoy gear in will eliminate any in the East Florida Coast closed area. of buoy gear vessels are not required to
benefits that the closures had; and, all The final rule will prohibit all attend the safe handling and release
the issues for PLL seem to be there for recreational fishermen and commercial workshops that are mandatory for PLL,
buoy gear. Bycatch issues are still there. fishermen not possessing a swordfish BLL, and gillnet fishermen, these
Response: The final rule will re-name handgear or swordfish directed limited owners and operators may use the same
free-floating handline gear as ‘‘buoy access permit from utilizing the gear release techniques and equipment and
gear,’’ limit vessels deploying the gear to type. According to 2004 logbook data, are encouraged to attend. If bycatch
possessing or deploying no more than 64 commercial handline trips were rates or mortality increase in the buoy
35 floatation devices, and will limit its reported with 404 swordfish reported gear fishery, NMFS may consider
use to commercial swordfish handgear caught. Of those 404 swordfish mandatory workshops for this fishery.
fishermen. Therefore, this rule captured, 67.8 percent (274 fish) were Similarly, if the fishery expands into the
represents a limitation on the handgear retained, 24.3 percent (98 fish) were Gulf of Mexico, NMFS may consider
fishery over the status quo, and is not released alive, and 7.9 percent (32 fish) additional restrictions to prevent
modifying any current restrictions on were discarded dead. problems with free floating drilling
longline fishing. This gear has been Comment 36: NMFS received several barges or to alleviate other problems not
utilized with no gear limits by both comments concerned about allowing anticipated at this time.
recreational and commercial fishermen buoy gear to operate in the Gulf of Comment 37: NMFS should consider
in areas closed to pelagic longline Mexico. Those comments include: buoy geographic limitations for buoy gear to
fishing in the past and will be gear should not be allowed in the minimize negative gear conflicts in a
prohibited for use by recreational DeSoto closures area, nor should it be future action.
fishermen and all commercial fishermen allowed in the Southern Canyon area. Response: During the scoping process,
not possessing a swordfish handgear or There should be no free floating gear the Agency received comments
swordfish directed limited access because it could get entangled with oil indicating that the existing swordfish
permit. The continued use of this gear rigs; buoy gear may need greater handgear fishery does not appear to be
by a limited number of fishermen would restrictions in the Gulf. I am worried widespread and appears to operate only
not violate the intent and purpose of the about excessive gears and bycatch with off the East Coast of Florida. NMFS does
East Florida Coast closed area (or other the currents and weather; concerns on not expect that this final action, which
PLL closed areas), which was to how buoy gear will be deployed in the places limits on that existing fishery,
minimize bycatch in the PLL fishery Gulf of Mexico with free floating would change the location of the
while maximizing the retention of target drilling barges and their multiple fishery. However, if circumstances
species. Current data regarding the thrusters, may lead to pollution issues; warrant changes, the Agency may
existing handline fishery indicates that future generations will suffer and only consider making adjustments to
bycatch rates with this gear are low with one group will benefit from allowing 30 minimize negative impacts in the future,
no marlin or sea turtles being reported - 50 hook sets with no radar reflectors if necessary.
caught from 2000 to 2004, and only one into the DeSoto area south of Destin. Comment 38: There is no penalty for
sailfish, which was released alive. After the buoy fishermen have moved clipping the buoy gear together to create
Comment 35: NMFS received several on, there will never be another blue a longline.
comments expressing concern over the marlin, swordfish, tuna, or shark in the Response: Under the current
authorization of buoy gear in the East Gulf of Mexico; the De Soto Canyon regulations, lines with three hooks or
Florida Coast PLL closed area, pelagic longline closure has been more are longlines. Vessels clipping
including: pelagic longline vessels once successful over the past five years with buoy gears together and having more
contributed to a vast amount of dead more tuna, dolphin, swordfish, and than two hooks on any combination of
discards of juvenile swordfish in the wahoo; and buoy gear should be banned lines would need the appropriate
East Florida Coast area and buoy gear completely from the Gulf of Mexico. permits allowing the operators to
will have the same effect; the East Response: During the scoping process, harvest HMS with longline gear.
Florida Coast closed area is a vital the Agency received comments Additionally, these vessels could only
nursery area that needs to be protected; indicating that the swordfish handgear set linked buoy gear in areas not closed
there should be no free-floating gear fishery does not appear to be to longline fishing. The final rule
allowed in the Florida Straits; buoy gear widespread and appears to operate only prohibits linking buoy gear together.
is like longline gear, and NMFS should off the East Coast of Florida, not in the Comment 39: Buoy gear exponentially
ban longlining for swordfish in the Gulf of Mexico. As discussed under increases the footprint of the vessel
Florida Straits; to fish buoy gear in the Comment 34, the final rule will restrict because it is not attached to the vessel.
Straits of Florida the handgear operator the number of unattached handlines or It will become entangled in offshore oil
must ensure 100 percent release of buoy gear that may be deployed and the platforms and dynamic positioning
juvenile swordfish; and, a limit might be number of permit holders authorized to vessels, and other oilfield related
facilities and will result in more stand- HMS harvested from its management economic impacts for enforcement’s
off regulations for the recreational and unit that is not retained must be convenience. It is not an enforcement
commercial fisheries from these released in a manner that will ensure necessity; and PLL and BLL gears
structures, not to mention the additional maximum probability of survival, but should be differentiated by the number
expense to the oil companies of without removing the fish from the of floats (alternative I1(b)), as well as the
removing this gear and repairing water. types of species landed (alternative
damage caused by it. Comment 41: NMFS received I1(c)).
Response: As discussed under comments supporting the use of Response: NMFS believes that the
Comment 34, the final rule will restrict secondary gears. Those comments existing regulations defining pelagic and
the number of unattached handlines or include: I support alternative H7, clarify bottom longline gear at § 635.21(c) and
buoy gear that may be deployed and the the allowance of handheld cockpit gears (d), respectively, are generally
number of permit holders authorized to used at boat side for subduing HMS sufficient. However, there could be
utilize the gear type relative to the status captured on authorized gears; hand situations where it is difficult for law
quo. In addition, the requirement to darts need to be authorized as secondary enforcement to differentiate between the
affix gear monitoring equipment is gear so that the people in Florida’s two gear types while enforcing the
intended to reduce the likelihood of swordfish recreational fishery are not closed areas or VMS regulations.
gear loss. fishing illegally; and this action is Difficulties could arise, for example, in
iv. Secondary Gear necessary to avoid enforcement conflicts determining whether the weights and/or
over what gear is legal for subduing anchors are capable of maintaining
Comment 40: NMFS received HMS.
comments on the types of secondary contact between the mainline and the
Response: The final rule authorizes ocean bottom in the case of bottom
gears (also known as cockpit gears) that the use of hand-held secondary gears to
would be authorized under the longlines, or whether the floats are
aid anglers in subduing large HMS capable of supporting the mainline in
proposed Consolidated HMS captured by authorized primary gear
regulations. Those comments include: the case of pelagic longlines. These
types to reduce the loss of fish at the difficulties could result in lengthier
what are the primary cockpit gears side of the boat, increase safety when
included for authorization?; will the boardings at sea by law enforcement,
subduing large HMS, minimize temporary curtailment of fishing
regulations have a list of acceptable enforcement problems, and respond to
cockpit gears because that list is going activities, and potential legal
requests from fishery participants to proceedings. For these reasons, NMFS
to be extremely long to cover all the
clarify the regulations. This action does sought to reexamine the current PLL
methods currently used?; people are
not specify acceptable secondary gears, and BLL definitions in this amendment
going to need to provide NMFS with a
rather it clarifies the HMS regulations to to ascertain whether improvements
list of gears currently used to be sure
state that secondary gear may be used to were warranted. Based upon public
they are included; do not allow dart
aid in the landing or subduing of HMS comment and consultations with law
harpoons and other secondary gears to
after they are brought to the vessel using enforcement, NMFS found that the
be used as primary authorized gears;
a primary authorized gear type only. current PLL and BLL definitions could
mechanical harpoons should not be
Secondary gears may also reduce the be strengthened by establishing limits
used as secondary gear; and, if there is
loss of fish at boat side, increasing on the types of species that could be
choice between a gaff, flying gaff, and
cockpit harpoon, I am going for a retention rates. Primary authorized gears possessed when fishing in HMS closed
cockpit harpoon every time to kill fish are listed in the current HMS areas with these gears. However, in
and protect myself. regulations at 50 CFR 635.21(e). order to maintain operational flexibility
Response: The final rule does not list D. Regulatory Housekeeping Measures for the HMS longline fleet, and in
specific acceptable secondary gear; recognition of the impracticality of
rather, secondary gears will be i. Definitions of Pelagic and Bottom defining and limiting the number of
authorized for assisting in subduing an Longline ‘‘fishing floats’’ possessed or deployed,
HMS already brought to the vessel with Comment 1: NMFS received gear-based alternative I1(b) is no longer
an authorized primary gear. Primary comments in support of the no-action preferred. The overall objective of this
authorized gears are listed in the current alternative to maintain the current PLL issue, preserving the integrity of the
HMS regulations at 50 CFR 635.21(e). and BLL gear definitions, and a HMS time/area closures, can effectively
While examples of secondary gears are comment in support of the two be achieved by implementing
listed in the regulations, the list is not alternatives that were preferred in Draft requirements on the species
all inclusive in order to provide Consolidated HMS FMP. These composition of catch. This methodology
fishermen the maximum flexibility in included: I support Alternative I1(a) — addresses the crux of the issue, which
using the secondary gear to gain control no action. The other alternatives tend to is to discourage catches of pelagic
of an animal that will be brought micromanage directed shark fishermen species in PLL closed areas (and vice
onboard the vessel while also out of the closed areas, in particular the versa), without the adverse economic
maintaining safe conditions on the NC BLL time/area closure, by reducing impacts associated with additional gear
vessel. This action will clarify the profits and causing unnecessary restrictions. This method is expected to
regulations to state that secondary gears economic impacts; if fishermen can tell accommodate the majority of
will not be allowed to capture the difference between BLL and PLL commercial fishing operations, yet still
undersized or free-swimming HMS, but gears, they should be able to teach provide a quantifiable means to
only to gain control of legal-sized HMS NMFS enforcement agents the differentiate between PLL and BLL
brought to the vessel with an authorized difference; it is still clear that there is a vessels. As a result, the ecological
primary gear with the intent of retaining problem with the BLL and PLL benefits associated with HMS closed
the HMS. This measure will definitions. NMFS should reexamine areas are expected to remain intact,
acknowledge and account for the this issue with some fishing industry including reductions in discards of
current HMS regulations at 50 CFR assistance; and, NMFS is making a big swordfish, bluefin tuna, dusky sharks,
635.21(a), which state that an Atlantic deal and creating potential additional sandbar sharks, other HMS, other
finfish, and protected species. By hooked. This could potentially be a BLL vessel still meets the definition of
selecting a method that relies upon the accomplished in a variety of ways. a PLL vessel. With a quantifiable
species composition of the catch, NMFS NMFS believes that establishing a limit method, the enforcement officers would
anticipates that HMS longline vessel on the species composition of the catch be less likely to make that
operators will be prudent when fishing when fishing in the HMS closed areas determination. Nevertheless, there may
in the HMS closed areas and catch is an efficient method to discourage be a potential benefit to a VMS
predominantly pelagic species in BLL illegal fishing activities in these areas, declaration system, and NMFS will
closed areas, or demersal species in PLL without imposing additional gear continue to assess the need for such a
closed areas. However, the requirements that could restrict system.
establishment of quantifiable gear-based operational flexibility. As long as a Comment 4: Comments opposed to
criteria to differentiate between PLL and vessel is in compliance with the current alternative I1(b), defining BLL or PLL
BLL gear could still potentially offer an PLL or BLL definitions when fishing in gear based on the number of floats
effective method to further eliminate the HMS closed areas, the operator will onboard, included: We are strongly
ambiguities between the two gear types. retain the flexibility to choose how to opposed to alternative I1(b); defining
The Agency intends to continue to comply with the catch limits specified BLL and PLL gear by the number of
assess the need for, and potential in this final rule. More importantly, floats will not work; and, alternative
effectiveness of, gear-based criteria. If however, these catch limits must be I1(b) would impose an unnecessary
needed, such criteria could be adhered to if any portion of a trip is in additional economic and logistic burden
developed in consultation with the an HMS closed area. NMFS believes that on already over-regulated fisheries.
fishing industry to further improve the it is not unreasonable, or unduly Response: Although the analysis in
monitoring of, and compliance with, burdensome, for HMS longline vessels the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP
HMS closed areas. to comply with the intent of the HMS indicated that relatively few HMS
Comment 2: NMFS received several closed areas and to avoid pelagic or longline vessels would be affected by
comments indicating that HMS longline demersal species, especially when the float requirement in non-selected
vessel operators need to maintain their legally fishing in these areas with BLL alternative I1(b), the alternative is not
operational flexibility. These comments or PLL gear, respectively. Because being implemented in the final rule. As
include: Longline vessels need to NMFS is implementing a species-based, described in Comment 2 above, several
maintain their ability to change between rather than a gear-based, alternative to commenters stated that a float
PLL and BLL gear in order to ensure differentiate between pelagic and requirement would diminish the
versatility. For economic survival and bottom longlines, a gear stowage flexibility of vessel operators to
efficiency, vessels often conduct both provision is not necessary at this time. participate in different fishing activities,
PLL and BLL sets on a single trip. This Comment 3: Comments were received depending upon the circumstances.
is especially true for PLL vessels that indicating that vessel monitoring Also, consultations with NMFS Office of
fish with BLL gear during rough weather systems (VMS) could be used to help Law Enforcement indicated that
days on a PLL trip. There will be an differentiate between PLL and BLL defining ‘‘fishing floats’’ and limiting
economic loss if NMFS restricts this vessels. These comments included: the number that could be possessed or
flexibility; definitions for PLL and BLL Since VMS are already required for the deployed would not be practical. In
gear should be developed to facilitate closed areas, NMFS should establish a light of these concerns, NMFS believes
identification by law enforcement, declaration system allowing the VMS that the overall objective of this issue,
while not precluding fishermen from monitors to know what gear type is preserving the integrity of the HMS
choosing between gear types; and in being utilized and why. Law time/area closures, can effectively be
order to allow flexibility to conduct enforcement and/or observers could achieved by implementing a method
both PLL and BLL sets, the final verify compliance, and impose penalties that relies upon the species composition
regulations may need to specify for non-compliance; and, it has been of catch and the existing PLL and BLL
differences between active gear and gear suggested that vessels ‘‘call-in’’ and definition. By not implementing a
onboard the boat and not in use, declare their intentions prior to restriction on the allowable number of
because there have been some engaging in fishing in a closed area. floats, potential adverse economic
enforcement errors. This would be an unnecessary burden, impacts associated with additional gear
Response: NMFS recognizes that HMS but it is feasible. restriction should be mitigated
longline vessels need to maintain their Response: This comment was also Comment 5: NMFS received many
ability to change between PLL and BLL raised by both the public and the NMFS comments regarding the float
gear in order to ensure versatility. The Office of Law Enforcement during requirement in alternative I1(b), and
reason for addressing the gear definition scoping hearings, and was considered suggestions for developing other gear-
issue in this amendment was not to during the development of alternatives based methods to better differentiate
impose additional economic costs on for the DEIS. However, NMFS decided between PLL and BLL. These comments
longline vessels, but rather to preserve against including an alternative with a include: There is some confusion in
the conservation benefits associated VMS declaration because it would not preferred alternative I1(b) between the
with the HMS time/area closures. The alleviate the need for a quantifiable terminology that the industry is
HMS longline closed areas were method for enforcement to use in order accustomed to using versus what NMFS
implemented to protect a variety of to differentiate between PLL and BLL is using; how do the proposed
HMS and other protected species. This gear. For example, while a vessel regulations define PLL and BLL gear
protection could be compromised if operator could declare to be fishing with and floats?; floats are used for recovery
HMS longline vessels are catching large PLL or BLL gear, enforcement officers and monitoring sections of the gear. The
amounts of pelagic species in the PLL would still need to verify compliance types of mainline and anchor are related
closed areas, while under the guise of with the closed areas either at the dock to where the gear is fishing in the water
BLL fishing, and vice-versa. The critical or at sea. Without a quantifiable column. The mainline and anchors
factor in maintaining the integrity of the method, enforcement officers could onboard a vessel would be better
HMS time/area closures is, therefore, to decide that a BLL vessel that has a few indicators of what type of longline gear
ensure that the proper species are buoys onboard and that declared itself is onboard a vessel; if NMFS proceeds
with alternative I1(b), it is important to floats is not limited. Nevertheless, the Response: The issues involved in
make sure that an anchor ball is establishment of quantifiable gear-based defining ‘‘greenstick gear’’ are addressed
accounted for in the float enumeration; criteria to differentiate between PLL and in the Authorized Fishing Gear section.
there is no critical need for BLL vessels BLL gear using the recommendations NMFS is not implementing management
to possess ‘‘bullet’’ type floats. Such contained in this comment could help measures that would specify the
floats can be replaced with polyballs on to eliminate ambiguity between gear allowable number of floats for PLL and
BLL vessels at minimum costs. On the types in the future, if necessary. NMFS BLL gear. If needed in the future, NMFS
contrary, PLL vessels must carry large will continue to assess the need for, and may consider distinguishing between
quantities of both polyball and ‘‘bullet’’ potential effectiveness of, gear-based greenstick and longline gear based upon
floats, this difference would enable criteria. If needed, such criteria could be the allowable number of floats.
enforcement officers to differentiate developed in consultation with the Comment 8: NMFS received
between PLL and BLL vessels while fishing industry to further improve the comments in opposition to alternative
underway and/or fishing. NMFS could monitoring of, and compliance with, I1(c), including: I vehemently oppose
allow PLL vessels to retain the HMS closed areas. preferred alternative I1(c) which
necessary flexibility if they required all Comment 6: Comments regarding the differentiates between BLL and PLL gear
‘‘bullet’’ type floats to be stowed below numbers of floats specified in based upon the species composition of
deck and/or completely covered before alternative I1(b) included: The number the catch. There is no difference
engaging in BLL fishing in a PLL closed of floats proposed for the PLL/BLL between PLL and BLL gear. BLL gear
area. It would be awkward but it is designation in alternative I1(b) (i.e., 71 takes so long to set and retrieve that it
feasible; NMFS enforcement should not or more floats for PLL) is appropriate, can kill pelagic species while the hooks
require an adjustment to the definition. but fishermen could run into trouble are being retrieved. Enforcement will be
A PLL vessel is easy to spot by the with enforcement during test sets. These ineffective on this alternative. What is a
amount of ‘‘bullet’’ floats and balls. are sets fishermen use to determine vessel considered to be, PLL or BLL,
While deployed, the gear is easy to what fish, if any, are in the area. Test after it has just switched from one mode
determine by the consecutive ‘‘bullet’’ sets are usually shorter and have fewer to the other prior to harvest in the
floats along the line. When a PLL vessel floats; NMFS is proposing too many second mode?; and, I am opposed to this
is engaged in BLL fishing, there is no floats to differentiate between BLL and alternative because it will limit the
consecutive string of ‘‘bullet’’ floats and PLL gear in alternative I1(b). BLL gear abilities of the directed shark fishery.
a BLL vessel does not require hundreds Response: There is a difference
would have far fewer floats. Most BLL
of bullet floats; and, on the Grand between PLL and BLL gear. PLL gear
may have two to four floats with maybe
Banks, fishermen use polyballs, bullet fishes for pelagic species in the water
a 12 to 15 maximum; and, a fisherman
column, while BLL gear fishes for
floats and radio buoys, but I do not may do a short PLL set that would have
demersal species and is in contact with
know the exact number of each; Radio less than 71 floats when fishing in
the seafloor. Although the gears can
buoys are probably used more with PLL closed areas and might be able to catch each catch both types of species, the
than with BLL gear. demersal fish, like sandbar sharks, on catch rates of demersal and pelagic
Response: NMFS appreciates these PLL gear. species are very different between the
comments. The proposed regulations Response: Based upon an analysis of gears. This fact is evident in the Coastal
did not contain new definitions for PLL the HMS logbook in the Draft logbook where, on average, from 2000 -
and BLL gear, and did not define Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS believes 2004, over 95 percent of the reported
‘‘fishing floats.’’ Rather, comments were that the number of floats specified in the landings were demersal ‘‘indicator’’
specifically requested on potential proposed rule to differentiate between species, as measured relative to the total
definitions for ‘‘fishing floats.’’ While PLL and BLL gear was appropriate. The amount of ‘‘indicator’’ species.
differences between PLL and BLL gear analysis indicated that at least 90 Similarly, in the PLL logbook, from
might be readily apparent, these percent of all reported BLL sets in 2002 2000 - 2004, on average, over 95 percent
comments highlight the difficulties and 2003 possessed fewer than 70 floats, of the reported landings were pelagic
associated with developing definitions and approximately 95 percent of all ‘‘indicator’’ species, as measured
that are quantifiable, understandable, reported PLL sets in 2002 and 2003 relative to the total amount of
practical, enforceable, and can possessed more than 70 floats. However, ‘‘indicator’’ species. For this reason, a
accommodate a variety of different public comment indicated that, in some 5–percent threshold of pelagic and
fishing techniques. These limitations instances, the float requirement could demersal ‘‘indicator’’ species will be
greatly restrict the ability to develop adversely affect operational flexibility. established for BLL and PLL gear,
practical, quantifiable definitions for For this reason, and the others respectively, on trips fishing in HMS
PLL and BLL gear that are discussed in the responses to Comments time/area closures. NMFS recognizes
improvements over the existing 4 and 5 above, the allowable number of that a small percentage of species caught
definitions. For these reasons, and for floats is not being limited. NMFS on BLL and PLL gear will be the
those discussed in the response to believes that the concern expressed in unavoidable bycatch of pelagic and
Comment 1 above, NMFS believes that this comment regarding catching demersal species, respectively. Also, the
the current PLL and BLL definitions do demersal fish on PLL gear in BLL closed logbook data indicate that the 5–percent
not require significant modification, but areas will be adequately addressed by threshold would have been exceeded on
can be strengthened by establishing the final management measures, that a fishery-wide basis in 2004, whereas
limits on the types of species that can limit the amount of species (either both fisheries (PLL and BLL) would
be possessed when fishing in HMS pelagic or demersal, as appropriate) that have been well below the threshold
closed areas. In order to maintain may be possessed or landed from HMS from 2000 - 2003. If necessary, both the
operational flexibility for the HMS closed areas. 5–percent threshold and the list of
longline fleet, and in recognition of the Comment 7: Alternative I1(b) may indicator species can be modified in the
impracticality of defining and limiting assist in defining ‘‘greenstick gear’’ by future based upon a review of current
the number of ‘‘fishing floats’’ possessed specifying the numbers of floats for and historic landings and the
or deployed, the allowable number of pelagic and bottom longlines. effectiveness of the regulation.
Presently, the Agency does not expect directed fishing on pelagic species by pelagic and demersal species,
that the final rule implementing a 5– BLL vessels and vice-versa, but not respectively. Closing these areas to all
percent threshold will significantly increase regulatory discards. Data from gears, therefore, would impose
limit the abilities of either fishery. the Coastal and HMS logbooks indicate economic costs while achieving only
NMFS further believes that it is not that, on average, vessels remained below minimal ecological benefits. NMFS
unreasonable, or unduly burdensome, this threshold from 2000 - 2004, anticipates that HMS longline vessels
for HMS longline vessels to comply although it would have been exceeded will continue to catch predominantly
with the intent of the HMS closed areas in 2004. Based upon public comment, pelagic species in BLL closed areas, and
and avoid pelagic or demersal species, NMFS has modified the list of demersal demersal species in PLL closed areas.
especially when legally fishing in these ‘‘indicator’’ species by removing NMFS does not agree that areas closed
areas with BLL or PLL gear, hammerhead and silky sharks, and by to PLL or BLL gear also need to be
respectively. If any portion of an HMS adding tilefish to the list. If necessary, closed to buoy gear. As discussed in the
longline trip occurs within a BLL or PLL both the 5–percent threshold and the Authorized Fishing Gears section,
closed area, then that vessel would be list of indicator species could be NMFS is authorizing buoy gear in the
required to adhere to the 5–percent modified in the future based upon a commercial swordfish handgear fishery
threshold for pelagic or demersal review of current and historic landings. with gear marking requirements and
species, respectively. This management Comment 10: More enforcement time limits on the number that may be
measure is readily enforceable, either should be spent at the docks rather than deployed. These measures will prevent
through dockside verification of spending resources on investigating the uncontrolled future expansion of
landings or by at-sea boardings. If boats at sea. At-sea enforcement of this gear sector, while simultaneously
difficulties arise in determining whether alternative I1(c) could initiate providing a reasonable opportunity for
a vessel is fishing with PLL or BLL gear unnecessary de-icing of fish in the hold the U.S. to harvest its ICCAT swordfish
in a closed area using the existing while at sea, which has a substantial quota.
definitions, the species composition of economic impact.
catch methodology will provide a Response: As discussed above in the ii. Shark Identification
quantifiable method to verify fishing response to Comment 8, this final rule Comment 12: We support alternative
technique. is readily enforceable, either through I2(a) which would retain the current
Comment 9: Comments specifically dockside verification of landings or by
regulations regarding shark landing
referencing the 5–percent species at-sea boardings. If difficulties arise in
requirements (No Action) because the
composition threshold for determining whether a vessel is fishing
preferred alternative, I2(b), could have a
differentiating between gears include: In with PLL or BLL gear in a closed area
negative economic impact on the fish
order to differentiate between PLL and using the existing definitions, the
houses due to degradation of the
BLL gear, NMFS should prevent species composition of catch
product. The sharks could be exposed to
fishermen with BLL gear from landing methodology will provide a quantifiable
heat after unloading and weighing,
any pelagic species in preferred method to verify fishing technique.
Comment 11: The Gulf of Mexico instead of going directly into the ice vats
alternative I1(c). This prohibition would
Fishery Management Council and others after weighing. It costs time and money
eliminate the profit incentive and
have recommended that the preferred to stop and try to cut off all the
motive for violating closed areas and
alternative be changed from I1(b) to secondary fins, particularly small ones
manipulating set time, depth at which
I1(e); Base HMS time/area closures on after the boat has docked and the fish
gear is set, and the number of buoys; I
all longlines (PLL and BLL); alternative house has began the unloading efforts.
am opposed to the 5–percent tolerance
for species because there is too much I1(e) would be the easiest alternative to Response: In an effort to improve data
variability in the catch. This ratio could enforce. This is the only way to achieve collection, quota monitoring, and stock
also be problematic when combined a meaningful reduction in bycatch; assessments of shark species, the
with the alternative addressing dealers billfish feed throughout the water Agency is implementing measures
and vessels buying and selling fish in column. To provide the proper requiring that the second dorsal and
excess of retention limits, because there protection needed, both types of anal fins remain on all sharks through
is no room for error and no way to longline gear should be prohibited from landing. While offloading and
dispose of catch that is useful; NMFS closed areas; alternative I1(e) should processing procedures may have to be
must make sure that the species also prohibit buoy gear from the closed adjusted initially, NMFS believes that
composition lists in preferred areas; alternative I1(e) is the only way efforts to improve shark identification
alternative I1(c) are complete enough to to reduce bycatch and facilitate and enforcement of regulations will
allow for gear definitions based on enforcement; and, how deep must BLL improve the overall status of the shark
species; and, tilefish should be added to gear be set before it does not adversely fishery. These measures are an
the list of demersal indicator species. affect pelagic species? intermediate action, relative to no-
Response: NMFS appreciates these Response: NMFS agrees that the action and requiring all fins on all
comments. As discussed above in the alternative to base all closures on both sharks, in terms of economic impacts, in
response to Comment 8, both types of PLL and BLL gear would be the easiest that the second dorsal and anal fins are
gear can occasionally catch both types to enforce. However, this final rule typically the least valuable and are
of ‘‘indicator’’ species, pelagic and limiting bycatch is expected to be very usually sold as the lowest quality grade.
demersal. The establishment of a zero- effective at preserving the conservation Either the dealer or the fishermen can
tolerance for pelagic ‘‘indicator’’ species benefits associated with the closed remove these fins after landing. If
when fishing in PLL closed areas with areas, while simultaneously mitigating removing the fins at the dock becomes
BLL gear could create a situation where adverse economic impacts on longline problematic, it is possible that
regulatory discards occur, due to the vessels fishing in the closed areas. fishermen could pre-cut fins, so that
unavoidable bycatch of pelagic species. When deployed and fished properly, they are only partially attached, to
The final rule strikes an appropriate available logbook information suggests decrease processing time. Alternatively,
balance by establishing a 5–percent that BLL and PLL gear can be set and dealers could remove the fins later
tolerance, which should discourage retrieved with only minor impacts on when processing the rest of the carcass.
Comment 13: NMFS received the Also, even with tolerance limits, the clarify other existing regulations
following comments supporting the likelihood of exceeding these limits regarding landings of HMS in excess of
alternative to require the second dorsal would still exist and NMFS would commercial retention limits. As with
and anal fins on all sharks: I support the likely continue to receive comments to any limitation on catch, vessel owner/
preferred alternative; these measures adjust the limit or tolerance limit. The operators must use their experience and
will greatly enhance species-specific suggestion to fund the observer program professional judgment in determining
shark landing data and improve through proceeds from fish landed where their harvest stands in regard to
identification; retention of the second above the trip limit raises a number of catch/possession/trip limits to ensure
dorsal fin and anal fins of landed practical and legal concerns. If these that they do not exceed the limits.
sharks, including nurse and lemon concerns can be satisfactorily resolved, Regarding the 5–percent tolerance limit
sharks, will improve quota monitoring, NMFS may consider this suggestion in on shark fins, this limit is currently
prohibited species enforcement, and the future, as needed. dictated by the Shark Finning
species-specific identification of sharks; Comment 16: Because NMFS is Prohibition Act. NMFS cannot alter this
and, lemon sharks and great considering measures to strengthen limit.
hammerheads have valuable fins- they HMS retention limits, does this mean Comment 18: In addition to the
should be ok to remove after landing. that we are currently allowed to exceed selected alternatives, NMFS should
Response: The final rule is expected the retention limits? enforce the existing prohibition on the
to generate ecological benefits by Response: No. Currently all vessels sale of recreationally caught HMS.
enhancing and improving species fishing for, retaining, or possessing NMFS should levy heavy fines and
identification and data collection, Atlantic HMS, with the intent to sell permanent permit sanctions on the
particularly in coordination with the that catch, must abide by the fishermen, vessel owner, and buyer if
final management measures requiring commercial retention limits as stated in any bag limit fish are sold, traded, or
shark dealer identification workshops, §§ 635.23 and 635.24. The current bartered. NMFS should implement
thereby leading to improved prohibitions located in § 635.71 additional restrictive provisions in the
management and a sustainable fishery. reinforce the applicability of these Final Consolidated HMS FMP to
Comment 14: Maintaining the second commercial limits. The final rule prevent the illegal sale of recreational
dorsal and anal fins on all sharks will implements new prohibitions making it catches.
do little to improve shark identification. illegal for any person to purchase or sell Response: The current suite of
Response: The second dorsal and anal any HMS from an individual vessel in regulations and prohibitions contained
fins of sharks vary in color, shape, and excess of the commercial retention in 50 CFR part 635 address the illegal
size (relative to the body). While limits. As such, dealers or buyers of sale, trade, and bartering of
retaining these fins may not allow all HMS in excess of commercial retention recreationally landed HMS. As the range
shark species to be distinguished from limits will be held responsible for their of violations regarding these types of
each other, NMFS believes that it will actions. These prohibitions are intended activities can vary greatly, the current
aid shark identification at landing, to improve compliance with HMS penalty schedule provides enforcement
which, in conjunction with species retention limits by extending the agents and prosecutors with the
identification workshops, should reduce regulations to both of the parties flexibility to determine a suitable fine,
the number of unclassified sharks being involved in a transaction. They will based on information pertaining to each
reported. While retaining these fins is reinforce and clarify other existing specific infraction.
expected to enhance identification, regulations regarding landings of HMS
iv. Definition of ‘‘East Florida Coast
other alternatives allowing these fins to in excess of commercial retention limits.
Comment 17: NMFS received Closed Area’’
remain on nurse and lemon sharks
could confuse identification by allowing comments both in support of and Comment 19: NMFS received
some sharks to be completely finned, opposition to alternatives I3(b) and contrasting comments on preferred
and could have adverse ecological I3(c). Those comments in support stated alternative I4(b), which would modify
impacts. that NMFS needs to make all parties the outer boundary of the East Florida
involved in a violation of the fishery Coast Closed Area so that it corresponds
iii. HMS Retention Limits regulations accountable, both vessel with the EEZ. These comments include:
Comment 15: NMFS received the owners and dealers regardless if they are I support alternative I4(b), which
following comment in support of the no commercial or recreational. Those amends the coordinates of the Florida
action alternative I3(a): Proceeds from comments opposed stated: Alternatives East Coast closure; and, I am opposed to
fish caught in excess of a vessel’s trip I3(b) and I3(c) eliminate flexibility when expanding any of the existing closed
limit should be donated to NMFS to it comes to shark landings. As scales are areas, including the East Florida Coast
help fund the observer program up to a not used on small boats, vessel owner/ closed area described in preferred
certain limit, such as 5 percent, and operators can only estimate a trip limit alternative I4(b). The PLL fleet needs
fishermen should get fined for anything at sea based upon a carcass count and every inch of available fishing grounds.
above that percentage. an estimated average weight; and, Response: NMFS does not expect a
Response: For each of the regulated concerns exist regarding the 5–percent reduction in HMS catches associated
HMS, specific trip limits have been shark fin/body ratio. The ratio is not with the final rule because the
developed based upon a number of correct as it was based on one species. geographic size increase is very small
biological, social, and/or economic Thus, we need to have species-specific (0.5 nm) and, according to the PLL
reasons, such as the nature of the trip ratios for these alternatives to be fair. logbook data, there have not been any
(commercial or recreational), the gear Response: The final rule is intended recent catches or PLL sets in this area.
types used to harvest the fish, or the to improve compliance with HMS Fishing effort that would have occurred
status of the stock in question. Thus, retention limits by extending the in this area will likely relocate to nearby
tolerance limits need to be developed regulations to both of the parties open areas with similar catch rates.
for each individual species on a fishery- involved in a transaction where HMS Therefore, overall fishing effort is not
by-fishery basis, and may not be exceeding trip limits are sold or expected to change as a result of the
appropriate for all regulated species. purchased. It will also reinforce and final rule. NMFS is correcting the
coordinates to reflect the original intent whether or not the gear is attached to a swordfish caught across all fisheries is
of the East Florida Coast closed area to vessel. If the gear is attached, it would below the size of maturity. Because the
extend to the outer boundary of the EEZ. be considered handline and could be area off the east coast of Florida is a
used, with the appropriate permits, in known nursery ground for swordfish, it
v. Definition of ‘‘Handline’’
any of the tunas, swordfish, or shark is likely that any fishing gear, including
Comment 20: I support preferred fisheries. If the gear is not attached, it rod and reel or handline, used to catch
alternative I5(b), which requires that will be considered buoy gear and can swordfish off the east coast of Florida
handlines be tied to the boat. If it is tied only be used in the commercial catches juvenile swordfish.
to the boat it is a handline, if it is not, swordfish handgear fishery.
it is a longline. Specifically, handlines are defined as vi. Possession of Billfish on Vessels
Response: NMFS is implementing the fishing gear that is attached to, or in Issued HMS Commercial Permits
referenced alternative which will contact with a vessel; that consists of a Comment 24: What types of permits
require that all handlines remain mainline to which no more than two would be affected by preferred
attached to, or in contact with, a vessel. hooks or gangions may be attached; and alternative I6(b), which prohibits vessels
However, by authorizing buoy gear in that is released and retrieved by hand issued commercial permits and
the commercial swordfish handgear rather than by mechanical means. Buoy operating outside of a tournament from
fishery (see Authorized Fishing Gears), gear is authorized for the commercial possessing or taking Atlantic billfish?
unattached lines will not, by default, handgear fishery, and consists of one or Response: Under the final rule, only
automatically be considered longline more floatation devices supporting a persons issued an HMS Angling or HMS
gear. Buoy gear will be authorized only single mainline to which no more than Charter/Headboat, or who have been
in the commercial swordfish handgear two hooks or gangions are attached. issued an Atlantic Tunas General
fishery with gear marking requirements, Buoy gear is required to be constructed Category permit and are participating in
hook limitations, and limits on the and deployed so that the hooks are a registered HMS tournament, are
number that may be deployed. Both attached to the vertical portion of the allowed to possess or take an Atlantic
handlines and buoy gear will still be mainline. Flotation devices may be billfish. Persons issued only Federal
limited to no more than two hooks per attached to one, but not both ends of the swordfish, shark, or Atlantic Tunas
line. mainline, and no hooks or gangions may
Comment 21: We support alternative permits (including General Category
be attached to any horizontal portion of permits outside of registered HMS
I5(c), which would require fishermen to the mainline. If more than one floatation
attach their handlines to their vessels, tournaments) are not allowed to possess
device is attached to a buoy gear, no or take an Atlantic billfish. Persons
because handlines should remain as hook or gangion is allowed to be
recreational gear (attached to the vessel) issued both commercial and recreational
attached to the mainline between them. HMS permits can take billfish, but only
and buoy gear should be designated as Individual buoy gears may not be
commercial gear. However, there are if the HMS species possessed onboard
linked, clipped, or connected together the vessel do not exceed the HMS
times when fishermen need to detach in any way. All buoy gears are required
their handlines, particularly when a recreational retention limits.
to be released and retrieved by hand. Comment 25: NMFS needs to make
large captured fish has spooled several Fishermen using buoy gear will also be
reels, in order to retrieve the gear. Is that sure that the language in preferred
required to affix monitoring equipment alternative I6(b) is very clear in
now going to be prohibited? to each individual buoy gear. Gear
Response: Buoy gear will be specifying that a commercial permit
monitoring equipment may include, but
authorized only for the commercial refers to HMS commercial fisheries.
is not limited to, radar reflectors, beeper
swordfish fishery. However, handlines Response: The regulations clarify that
devices, lights, or reflective tape. If only
are, and will continue to be, authorized reflective tape is used, the vessel only persons issued an HMS Angling or
in both commercial and recreational deploying the buoy gear is required to HMS Charter/Headboat, or who have
fisheries. The final rule requires that possess an operable spotlight capable of been issued an Atlantic Tunas General
handlines remain attached to a vessel. It illuminating deployed flotation devices. Category permit and are participating in
does not change which fisheries the gear Additionally, a floatation device is a registered HMS tournament, may
is authorized for. The situation where a defined as any positively buoyant object possess or take an Atlantic billfish.
large fish spools several reels and must rigged to be attached to a fishing gear. Persons issued non-HMS commercial
be ‘‘tethered-off’’ to retrieve the gear Comment 23: Are floating handlines permits may possess or take Atlantic
and/or the fish is an uncommon, but not being used to catch juvenile swordfish billfish only if they have also been
rare, occurrence. The important factor in in the East Florida Coast closed area? issued the appropriate HMS permits.
determining if this is an allowable Response: Available HMS logbook Comment 26: NMFS received several
practice is whether or not the handline data from 2000 to 2004 indicate that the comments in support of, or in
was attached to the vessel when the fish ‘‘handline-only’’ fishery grew opposition to, the preferred alternative
was first hooked. Primarily to facilitate significantly in 2004, and that catches I6(b) including: I support preferred
safety at sea, the handline could be and discards of swordfish in the alternative I6(b) until Atlantic billfish
‘‘tethered-off’’ if it was attached to the ‘‘handline-only’’ fishery increased as stocks are rebuilt; we support
vessel when the fish was hooked. NMFS well. However, the HMS logbook does prohibiting commercial vessels from
anticipates that these situations will not differentiate between ‘‘attached’’ possessing, retaining, or taking Atlantic
need to be examined on a case-by-case and ‘‘unattached’’ handlines, and billfish (alternative I6(b)); I support
basis, in consideration of the recreational data are limited. Given preferred alternative I6(b), because it
circumstances affecting the decision to these limitations, it is not possible to would help to eliminate gillnet fisheries
detach the handline. determine conclusively if floating that kill billfish and other non-target
Comment 22: How is the definition of handlines are being used to catch species; I am opposed to preferred
‘‘handline gear’’ different from the juvenile swordfish in the East Florida alternative I6(b) because all commercial
‘‘buoy gear’’ definition? Coast closed area. However, given that vessels should be able to retain
Response: In the final rule, the main the legal minimum size is below the size recreational bag limits; and, the
difference between the two gears is of maturity, the average size of preferred alternative I6(b) would have
more negative impacts than NMFS has have all the parts of the logbook Response: The alternative that was
listed presently in the DEIS. submission, should you send in what formerly preferred in the Draft
Response: The final rule clarifies that you have or wait until you have Consolidated HMS FMP would have
commercial HMS vessels cannot possess everything? For instance, I often do not clarified that carryover procedures
or take Atlantic billfish. The regulations have the offload tally by the time the apply to the NED set-aside, and that any
also clarify that the current Atlantic logbook is due (seven days after under/overharvest of the 25 mt (ww)
billfish fishery is a recreational fishery offloading). NED set-aside would be carried forward
and that Atlantic billfish may only be Response: As specified in the Atlantic into, or deducted from, the subsequent
possessed or retained when taken HMS regulations 50 CFR 635.5, owners fishing year’s set-aside allocation. This
recreationally by rod and reel. These of vessels issued an HMS permit must alternative was originally preferred in
measures do not eliminate any existing submit a fishing record that reports the the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, but
fisheries, but indicate that commercial vessel’s fishing effort, and the number of after subsequent analysis of the
fishermen onboard gillnet or bottom fish landed and discarded. This recommendation and in response to
longline vessels cannot retain a billfish information should be entered in the comments seeking clarification, the
taken with rod and reel for personal use, logbook within 48 hours of completing Agency has determined that the ICCAT
unless the vessel possesses both the that day’s activities on a multi-day trip, recommendation provides the flexibility
recreational and commercial permits or before offloading on a single day trip. to avoid some of the potential negative
(e.g., a commercial shark limited access Additionally, if HMS are sold, the vessel consequences associated with the
permit and an HMS Charter/Headboat owner must acquire copies of the weigh carryover provisions of alternative
permit) and if the other HMS onboard out slips for submittal with the logbook I10(b). Alternative I10(c) is now the
did not exceed the HMS recreational forms. All forms must be postmarked preferred alternative.
retention limits. Furthermore, General within seven days of offloading HMS, Comment 31: NMFS received a
Category fishermen fishing for Atlantic regardless of offloading location. The comment in support of alternative
tunas with rod and reel may not possess final rule does not change these I10(b), which would allocate 25 mt (ww)
billfish outside of registered HMS requirements. for PLL incidental catch in the NED
tournaments. To the extent that some each year.
ix. Non-Tournament Recreational Response: This alternative was
fishermen with commercial HMS
Landings Reporting originally preferred in the Draft
permits may take billfish, there could be
minimal impacts on commercial Comment 29: Vessel owners should Consolidated HMS FMP, because NMFS
fishermen taking billfish for personal not have to report their recreationally- believed that its interpretation would
use. Current regulations do not allow caught fish because they are often too provide consistency between the
commercial HMS fishermen to take busy (e.g., absentee boat owners that fly regulations and operational practices
recreational limits of HMS. NMFS into Florida from New York City for the regarding rollovers and final set-aside
believes that few commercial HMS weekend). quotas in excess of 25 mt (ww).
fishermen take billfish, this alternative Response: Because vessel owners are However, since publication of the Draft
clarifies the regulations, and reinforces issued HMS permits, the recreational Consolidated HMS FMP, additional
the recreational nature of the Atlantic non-tournament reporting requirement analysis of the ICCAT recommendation
billfish fishery. Once Atlantic billfish should logically, and for compliance indicated that the previously preferred
are rebuilt, NMFS may consider purposes, be the responsibility of vessel alternative, I10(b), might have some
alternatives to allow persons issued owners. Furthermore, since vessel potential negative consequences that
HMS commercial permits to possess a owners are the permit holders, they are could be avoided. Thus, under
limited number of Atlantic billfish for more likely to be familiar with the alternative I10(b), incidental BFT
personal use. regulations governing their fishery than landings from the NED Statistical area
non-permitted anglers who might be would be accounted for in this specific
vii. Bluefin Tuna Dealer Reporting onboard, possibly for just a day on a set-aside quota and any under/
Comment 27: I support preferred charter trip. The final rule will achieve overharvest of the set-aside quota would
alternative I7(b), which would allow better consistency with other HMS have been added to, or deducted from,
tuna dealers to submit their required recreational reporting requirements, and the following year’s baseline quota
reports using the Internet; NMFS should may also enhance the accuracy of, and allocation of 25 mt (ww). The under/
move towards alternative I7(c), which compliance with, non-tournament HMS overharvest accounting procedures
would require mandatory internet recreational data collection. However, in contained in this alternative may have
reporting, as soon as possible. response to this comment and other some potentially adverse ecological
Response: Due to the importance comments, NMFS has slightly modified impacts. Specifically, if the NED set-
NMFS places on reporting, the Agency the proposed regulations to allow an aside was not attained in multiple
wants to ensure that reporting is both owner’s designee to report non- successive years, the set-aside quota
convenient and fair for all user groups. tournament recreational landings of could increase quite dramatically and,
Mandatory Internet reporting will not be Atlantic billfish and swordfish. The as the wording in the ICCAT
implemented until NMFS is confident vessel owner will still be held recommendation specifically allocates
that such an action will not impede the responsible for reporting, but the this quota to the longline sector of the
reporting process. owner’s designee may fulfill the U.S. fleet, NMFS would not have the
requirement. flexibility to transfer this quota to the
viii. ‘‘No-Fishing’’, ‘‘Cost-Earnings’’, and Reserve or to another domestic user
‘‘Annual Expenditures’’ Reporting x. Pelagic Longline 25 mt NED group, to avoid a ‘‘stockpiling’’ situation
Forms Incidental BFT Allocation from occurring. An unrestrained build-
Comment 28: I support preferred Comment 30: NMFS should clarify up of the incidental NED set-aside BFT
alternative I8(b), which requires the whether ‘‘carryover’’ provisions would quota may eventually undermine the
submission of ‘‘no-fishing’’ forms. Is apply to the underharvest of the 25 mt intent of the set-aside itself by leading
there latitude with logbooks coming in NED BFT quota set-aside described in to additional effort being deployed in
from different countries? If you do not alternative I10(b). the NED, and potentially providing an
incentive to direct additional effort on limited by both the Federal bag limit billfish size limits), implemented as
BFT. For example, this set-aside could and the state minimum size. necessary and appropriate pursuant to
increase to a level that makes it more Comment 34: NMFS could say that all ATCA and based on the Magnuson-
attractive for PLL vessels to target BFT, HMS vessels with Federal permits Stevens Act. Selected alternative I11(b)
which could possibly result in negative (instead of just recreational-permitted is intended to ensure compliance with
impacts to BFT stocks. Therefore, this vessels) should comply with Federal these laws and Federal regulations by
alternative is no longer preferred and, regulations when in Federal or state federally-permitted vessels.
instead, alternative I10(c) is preferred. waters. Comment 36: HMS needs to check
Alternative I10(c) will not carry forward Response: NMFS already has a with the Regional Fishery Management
any under/overharvest, until such time requirement in place for commercial Councils to make sure they are not
as further ICCAT discussions regarding shark and swordfish fishermen. NMFS running afoul of one another. The
quota rollovers are conducted. also has the authority, under the preferred alternative I11(b) could create
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), more confusion if there is not a
xi. Permit Condition for Recreational to manage Atlantic tunas all the way to consistent policy for all Federal fishery
Trips shore for most states. This final rule will regulations.
Comment 32: NMFS received improve the enforcement of the Response: While NMFS agrees that
comments in support of preferred remaining fisheries (recreational shark, consistent policies across fisheries
alternative I11(b) including: We support swordfish, and billfish) without regulations are often appropriate, NMFS
preferred alternative I11(b) because it superseding the regulations of the states. disagrees that a regulatory requirement
will enhance Atlantic shark Thus, the final rule will allow states to would cause confusion if it were not
conservation efforts while ASMFC establish their own regulations for consistent across the different Regional
develops an interstate FMP; and, I shark, swordfish, and billfish fishermen Fishery Management Councils.
support the presumption that an HMS who are fishing only within state waters Currently, recreational fishermen
onboard a vessel was caught in Federal (Maine and Connecticut can also fishing for HMS are the only Federally
waters, because the current regulations establish their own regulations for regulated recreational fishermen that are
cause enforcement problems. Atlantic tunas). NMFS has the authority required to obtain a recreational fishing
to pre-empt states regarding HMS under permit. Recreational fishermen fishing
Response: NMFS agrees that this final
both the Magnuson-Stevens Act and for HMS in Federal waters are already
rule will enhance HMS conservation
ATCA. However, NMFS prefers to work familiar with and abide by Federal
efforts and will improve the
with states and the Atlantic and Gulf regulations for HMS. Similar to other
enforcement of HMS regulations.
States Marine Fisheries Commissions regulations, a permit condition that is
Currently, in many states, fishermen are
towards consistent regulations that meet appropriate for HMS may not be
able to bypass both Federal and state
both international and domestic goals, appropriate for a species managed by a
regulations by stating they were fishing
because each state is different and the Regional Fishery Management Council.
in state waters, rather than Federal
fishermen in each state prefer to fish for A Federal permit condition for those
waters, or vice versa. Under this rule, different HMS and use different gears. If HMS fishermen who also fish for HMS
recreational fishermen fishing in necessary to ensure rebuilding under in state waters should not cause
Federal waters, who have a Federal the HMS FMP or under an ICCAT confusion with other Federal
permit, must comply with the more Rebuilding Program, NMFS may regulations for other species managed
restrictive regulation if they are consider pre-empting state authority for by Regional Fishery Management
obtaining a Federal permit. Recreational specific HMS. Councils. Nevertheless, NMFS will
fishermen who do not have a Federal Comment 35: The South Atlantic continue to work with the affected
permit will continue to have to comply Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) Regional Fishery Management Councils
with only state regulations. Thus, as a and the State of Georgia commented that to ensure consistency, as needed.
result of this final rule, enforcement the preferred alternative I11(b) should Comment 37: Texas Parks and
officers will no longer need a statement be revised as for state/federal Wildlife opposes the preferred
from a fisherman with a Federal permit regulations does not implement the alternative I11(b), which would
regarding where the fish was caught. correct intent as: For allowable Atlantic establish a permit condition on
Rather, they will be able to take billfish (and other HMS that can legally recreational permit holders. The
enforcement action under the more be included), if a state has a catch, alternative would increase confusion
restrictive regulations. This requirement landing, or gear regulation that is more because it applies only to HMS and not
has been in place for a number of years restrictive than a catch, landing, or gear to the many other species in state
for shark and swordfish commercial regulation in the HMS FMP, a person waters. Second, Texas regulations
fishermen and has been useful in landing in such state Atlantic Billfish require that recreational landings in
enforcing commercial regulations. (and other HMS to be included) taken Texas meet Texas bag and size limits
Comment 33: Will NMFS consider the from the U.S. EEZ must comply with regardless of where the fish was caught
full suite of regulations implemented by more restrictive state regulation. The unless the regulations in the waters
states with regard to HMS or will it requirement should be a two-way street where they were caught are more
simply look at each regulation where more restrictive state regulations restrictive. Third, the preferred
individually? How does NMFS intend to should apply in adjacent federal waters. alternative applies only to Federal
define ‘‘strict?’’ Response: Individual states establish permit holders and would therefore
Response: Each situation will need to regulations for billfish or other HMS create a scenario where different
be examined on a case-by-case basis; caught in state waters, which may regulations apply in the same location.
however, it is likely that the regulations sometimes be more restrictive than the Lastly, the alternative does not simplify
will be enforced individually rather federal regulations. This final action already confusing and complex
than as a suite. For instance, if a state would not change state regulations of regulations.
has a larger bag limit and larger fishing in state waters. Federal Response: NMFS does not agree that
minimum size than the Federal regulations are established based on a recreational permit condition will
regulations, the fishermen will be ICCAT recommendations (e.g., the increase confusion. This regulation will
decrease confusion by clarifying that conservation and the achievement of of the shark ‘‘management unit.’’ NMFS
fishermen who are permitted to fish for optimum yield throughout their range, will continue to collect information on
HMS in Federal waters must comply both within and beyond the exclusive deepwater sharks and may add them to
with Federal regulations regardless of economic zone (16 U.S.C. 1812). the management unit or implement
where they are fishing, and that if they Requiring recreational fishermen to additional management measures in the
are fishing in state waters they must comply with Federal regulations future, as needed.
comply with the more restrictive regardless of where they are fishing, Comment 41: The proposed changes
regulation. Without this regulation, unless a state has more restrictive to the HMS tournament registration
fishermen may need to comply with one regulations, allows NMFS to manage process appear to complement proposed
regulation while fishing in Federal these fisheries in a more effective improvements to HMS tournament
waters and another regulation while manner. Additionally, the requirement registration, data collection, and
fishing in state waters. The final rule will only apply to those fishermen that enforcement described in Alternative
clarifies the situation if fishermen are obtain a Federal permit because they E9. Data collection should be mandatory
fishing in both state and Federal waters fish in Federal waters at some times. for all tournaments, just as it has been
on the same trip. With regard to the The requirement will not change state for all non-tournament landings since
second point, the State of Texas has regulations. Thus, states can establish 2003. There must be more accurate
implemented a regulation for its waters their own regulations for fishermen who estimates of billfish mortality.
that mirrors the regulation that NMFS is fish in state waters and not in Federal Response: These regulatory changes,
selecting. The Federal requirements will waters. Fishermen still have a choice which specify that HMS tournament
not change this and may complement not to obtain a Federal permit and to registration is not considered complete
the regulation by ensuring that federally comply only with state regulations in unless the tournament operator receives
permitted fishermen do not exceed state waters. a confirmation number from the HMS
either the Federal or Texas bag and size Management Division, will serve a very
xii. Proposed Regulatory Changes that similar purpose to the non-preferred
limits when fishing in or near Texas
Do Not Need Alternatives alternative, which would have
waters. NMFS agrees that different
regulations could apply to federally Comment 39: We support the implemented a mandatory HMS
permitted fisherman fishing in state regulatory changes that do not have tournament permit. HMS tournament
waters next to a state-only permitted alternatives. registration is already mandatory, so the
fisherman. This should not be an issue Response: NMFS appreciates this issuance of a confirmation number will
since the more restrictive regulation comment. The regulatory changes that provide verification that the process is
would apply. It may appear to be unfair did not need alternatives included complete in a much less burdensome
to the federally permitted fisherman if corrections, clarifications, minor manner. Currently, NMFS can select all
the Federal regulations for that species changes in definitions, and registered HMS tournaments for
are more restrictive than the state modifications to remove obsolete cross- mandatory reporting. Data obtained
regulations for that species. However, references. It is necessary to make these from HMS tournament reporting is used
the federally permitted fisherman also types of regulatory changes as dates for a variety of purposes.
has the opportunity to fish for HMS expire, and as minor issues are brought
to the Agency’s attention. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
outside of state waters. If the federally
permitted fisherman decides that the Comment 40: NMFS received a Comment 1: NMFS should look at
opportunity is not worth the additional comment regarding the changes to recent Sargassum research that suggests
restrictions, then that fisherman could clarify the definition of ‘‘shark’’ and the that Sargassum is essential fish habitat
decide not to obtain the permit. The shark ‘‘management unit’’: I am for juvenile billfish. The United States
final rule will not change the concerned about any item that lessens should pursue all appropriate
regulations for state-only permitted conservation on deepwater sharks; and, opportunities to ensure that this unique
fishermen, who are restricted to fishing deepwater sharks should be added to EFH is protected in international waters
within state waters and must comply the prohibited list rather than removed from excessive harvest and degradation.
with state, not Federal, regulations. from the management unit. Response: NMFS is aware of recent
Comment 38: While the South Response: The minor changes to the research regarding the role of Sargassum
Carolina Department of Natural shark definition and management unit as EFH for certain species, including
Resources understands the importance will not diminish the conservation of HMS. However, NMFS does not have
of consistent protection for HMS in state deepwater sharks. Deepwater sharks the authority to identify and describe
and Federal waters, we do not believe were previously placed in the EFH in international waters.
it was the intent of the Magnuson- management unit in order to prevent Furthermore, NMFS is not modifying
Stevens Fishery Conservation and finning for these species. No other the current descriptions or boundaries
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens regulations (e.g., permits, quotas, or bag of EFH in the Consolidated HMS FMP.
Act) to regulate fisheries in state waters limits) were placed on these species. Rather, NMFS gathered all new and
except under unusual circumstances. With the implementation of the Shark relevant information and presented it in
We request that preferred alternative Finning Prohibition Act in 2002 the Draft FMP to determine whether
I11(b) be deleted from the plan, and that (February 11, 2002, 67 FR 6194), NMFS changes to EFH may be warranted. If
HMS caught within state waters be decided the species were fully protected NMFS determines that EFH for some or
regulated through complementary state against finning through regulations all HMS needs to be modified, then that
legislation and regulations, or through outside of the FMP, and thus, removed would be addressed in a subsequent
provisions already existing in the Act the species from the management unit rulemaking, at which point Sargassum
that address special cases. in Amendment 1 to the 1999 Atlantic could also be considered as potential
Response: NMFS does not agree that Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP EFH. With regard to harvest, the final
the requirement is regulating fisheries in (December 24, 2003, 68 FR 74746). The South Atlantic Fishery Management
state waters. The Magnuson-Stevens Act referenced changes clarify the existing Council FMP for Pelagic Sargassum
authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to regulations by linking the definition of Habitat in the South Atlantic Region
manage HMS fisheries to ensure their ‘‘shark’’ more directly to the definition was approved in 2003 and implemented
strict restrictions on commercial harvest impact of HMS fishing activities on EFH Gulf of Mexico including, NMFS must
of Sargassum. The approved plan for other federally managed species. identify the Gulf of Mexico spawning
includes strong limitations on future Comment 5: What process did NMFS area as EFH for BFT and consider
commercial harvest. Restrictions use to identify shark EFH areas north of appropriate measures to minimize the
include prohibition of harvest south of Cape Hatteras? EFH boundaries appear impact of fishing on this EFH, and if
the boundary between North Carolina to follow bathymetric contour intervals. NMFS identifies the Gulf of Mexico BFT
and South Carolina, a total allowable Is this deliberate or just a coincidence? EFH, then NMFS should include the
catch (TAC) of 5,000 pounds wet weight Response: EFH areas north of Cape rest of the Atlantic and the
per year, limiting harvest to November Hatteras were identified and described Mediterranean also.
through June to protect turtles, requiring in the 1999 FMP through a combination Response: Portions of the Gulf of
observers onboard any vessel harvesting of fishery dependent and independent Mexico, Florida east coast, and the
Sargassum, prohibiting harvest within surveys and data collection, research, Atlantic were identified and described
100 miles of shore, and gear and the input of fishery managers and as adult and larval BFT EFH in the 1999
specifications. scientists. References to peer-reviewed FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and
Comment 2: The U.S. proposal at scientific publications that were used to Sharks, and the areas remain in effect to
ICCAT to identify Sargassum as EFH help identify important spawning and this day. NMFS is reviewing new and
was met with absolute resistance. NMFS nursery habitat for sandbar and dusky existing information, including data on
has to be careful in dealing with this shark are included in the 1999 FMP as potential BFT spawning areas, and will
subject in an international forum. It can well as the Consolidated HMS FMP. As take that information into account if any
undermine what NMFS is trying to do. described in the 1999 FMP, in some modifications to EFH areas are proposed
Response: NMFS is aware that there cases bathymetric contours were used to in a future rulemaking. NMFS does not
are many issues to consider with regard help delineate EFH boundaries because have the authority to identify and
to identifying and describing Sargassum they can mirror the observed describe EFH outside of the U.S. EEZ.
distributions of HMS and important
as EFH for HMS species. In addition, Comment 9: NMFS is to be
areas for spawning, feeding, and growth
there are potential international commended for substantial progress in
to maturity.
concerns, as expressed at ICCAT, Comment 6: NMFS should not use the development of the HMS EFH Plan.
regarding Sargassum as sensitive and same process the Gulf of Mexico Fishery NMFS has come a long way in
valuable habitat. NMFS will continue to Management Council did in identifying identifying EFH and should be
examine these issues carefully, and EFH and impacts to EFH. The Gulf of congratulated on the work completed in
work to improve our understanding of Mexico Fishery Management Council the EFH review and the review of
the role of Sargassum as valuable habitat managed areas are completely different, fishing impacts. However, there is still
for HMS. and people fish differently here (in the a disconnect between the available data,
Comment 3: Does NMFS have data to Atlantic) than in the Gulf of Mexico. especially with sharks, and what is in
justify not designating the entire Response: The species managed by the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP.
northern Gulf of Mexico as EFH, where each of the Regional Fishery NMFS should do a better job of
the paper in the journal ‘‘Nature’’ shows Management Councils are unique, with including data from research
the presence of adult BFT from January characteristics that require different institutions and grants. NMFS should
to June? approaches and methodologies for include individual researcher’s names
Response: As described in response to identification and description of EFH, that have contributed toward identifying
comment 1, NMFS is not currently including addressing both fishing and EFH.
changing any of the EFH areas identified non-fishing impacts. Similarly, HMS Response: NMFS appreciates the
for HMS, including EFH for BFT have unique habitat requirements that favorable comment, while
through this FMP. However, large require a unique approach to acknowledging that there is
portions of the Gulf of Mexico are identification of EFH. However, EFH considerable work left to do to
already identified as EFH under the guidelines require NMFS to consider accurately identify and describe EFH for
original EFH descriptions in the 1999 fishing and non-fishing impacts of other HMS. As described in the Final
FMP for several life stages of BFT, fisheries on HMS EFH, as well as the Consolidated FMP, significant hurdles
including adult and larval BFT. impact of HMS fishing activities on EFH must be overcome and NMFS is
Comment 4: The HMS regulations for other federally managed species. attempting to address these. For
should acknowledge and comply with Therefore, NMFS must coordinate with example, NMFS is continually working
Gulf of Mexico EEZ EFH and Habitat the relevant regional fishery with NMFS scientists and other experts
Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) management councils as part of the to update relevant data regarding HMS
designation and regulations, including process of modifying EFH. EFH as it becomes available. NMFS will
any future designations that the Gulf of Comment 7: Does HMS EFH include also include the names of researchers
Mexico Fishery Management Council liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities? responsible for collecting the data.
may make when conducting the Response: NMFS has not specifically Where possible and appropriate, NMFS
subsequent rulemaking mentioned in identified the structures associated with has already included the names of
the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP. LNG facilities as EFH, however, these individual researchers in the text, maps,
Response: NMFS agrees that any structures may be located within waters and tables.
future modifications to EFH or new that have been identified as HMS EFH. Comment 10: NMFS needs to update
HAPC areas in the Gulf of Mexico, or For example, there are energy EFH for sandbar sharks, all age groups,
any region for that matter, should be production facilities off the coast of by including a nursery area in the
coordinated with appropriate Regional Louisiana and Texas that may fall western Gulf of Mexico off the Texas
Fishery Management Council within EFH identified and described for coast, which is a straddling stock with
designations and regulations. The EFH BFT, yellowfin tuna, swordfish, and Mexico. It gets into the straddling stock
guidelines require NMFS to consider other HMS species. issue instead of the closed stock
fishing and non-fishing impacts of other Comment 8: NMFS received several scenario. NMFS needs to recognize the
fisheries on HMS EFH, as well as the comments regarding BFT EFH in the reality of the straddling stock. This area
is referred to in Stewart Springer’s ‘‘The live bottom and reefs, but they do hit substrate function as feeding habitat.
Natural History of the Sandbar Shark.’’ them as evidenced by the catch, which Therefore, actions that reduce the
Response: NMFS is aware of research includes various reef species that they availability of a major prey species,
done by Springer (1960) who proposed catch incidentally. These may include either through direct harm or capture, or
the existence of two breeding HMS forage species as well. NFMS through adverse impacts to the prey
populations of sandbar sharks, one off should investigate the possible impacts species’ habitat that are known to
the mid-Atlantic coast, and one in the of sink gillnet gear on offshore hard reduce the population of the prey
Gulf of Mexico. One of the research bottoms and reefs. This gear is being species, may be considered adverse
recommendations of the 2005 LCS Stock deployed on sensitive sponge-coral effects on EFH if such actions reduce
Assessment was to identify nursery areas. the quality of EFH. However, as
areas of sandbar sharks in the northern Response: The full extent of sink described in the FMP, BFT are
Gulf of Mexico, and NMFS will consider gillnet impacts on benthic habitat is not opportunistic feeders that prey on a
this information in any subsequent known at this time. NMFS agrees that variety of schooling fish, cephalopods,
updates or modifications to sandbar the primary adverse impact of sink benthic invertebrates, including silver
shark EFH. Although the Springer gillnets to sensitive habitat would be to hake, Atlantic mackerel, Atlantic
research showed a few neonates areas containing coral reefs or soft herring, krill, sandlance, and squid.
(newborns) in the Gulf of Mexico, there sponges. Sink gillnets set on sandy or Thus, NMFS needs to determine the
may not have been enough to consider mud bottom would be less likely to have extent to which herring or other prey
this area a primary nursery habitat like an adverse effect, as there would be species contribute to BFT EFH, and
the mid-Atlantic. little vertical structure that could be whether the removal of a portion of
Comment 11: NMFS has identified damaged. NMFS will continue to gather herring in the Gulf of Maine constitutes
HAPCs off of North Carolina and other information to assess whether sink a negative effect on BFT EFH prior to
areas further north. Since NMFS has gillnets are having adverse effects on taking any action. The EFH areas
implemented a closure off North EFH and whether actions to minimize identified and described as EFH for
Carolina, NMFS should also bring adverse impacts should be taken in a adult BFT in the Gulf of Maine may
Virginia into compliance to discourage future rulemaking. overlap with a number of different prey
shark fishing during pupping periods. Comment 15: Will NMFS be species in the area in addition to
Response: NMFS agrees, and has documenting where the prey species are Atlantic herring. These types of analyses
asked Virginia to implement state found? would be part of a follow up rulemaking
regulations that complement the Federal Response: Similar to what was done in which any changes to EFH
regulations. Recently Virginia in the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, boundaries, as well as any measures to
implemented a 4,000 lb trip limit Swordfish, and Sharks, NMFS will minimize adverse effects, would be
consistent with the Federal regulations. document areas that are important to proposed. NMFS will continue to
NMFS is continuing to work, through HMS for spawning, feeding, breeding, examine the importance of forage
ASMFC and the development of a and growth to maturity. This will species on BFT and other HMS EFH.
coastwide state fishery management require identification of prey species Comment 17: NMFS should
plan, with Virginia and other states to and the degree to which they overlap implement similar measures for herring
implement similar regulations as the both temporally and spatially with HMS as those taken by the New England
Federal fishery. in a given area. Fishery Management Council. Even
Comment 12: NMFS should consider Comment 16: NMFS should consider though herring are not a HMS species,
differences between monofilament and EFH designation for forage species for HMS are part of sustainable fisheries,
cable bottom longline when it comes to BFT in the Gulf of Maine. By removing and NMFS has an interest at stake. HMS
gear and impacts to coral reefs and prey species such as herring, mid water should speak up when NMFS is
sponges. Bottom longline gear would trawling has been destroying BFT in the considering what to do with the herring
not damage mud bottoms. Northeast. Fish are moving to Canada, plan.
Response: NMFS agrees that the type and Canada would be happy to take our Response: The New England Fishery
of gear used to fish in sensitive habitat fish. Mid-water trawling is banned in Management Council has proposed
areas may affect the overall impacts. Canadian waters, and they have a several measures for the Atlantic herring
NMFS will also be looking at overall booming BFT fishery right now. We fishery in the Gulf of Maine, including
fishing effort in sensitive coral reef areas have seen in the past that the BFT will limited access permits, a mid-water
to determine whether fishing impacts modify their migrations, and we would trawl restricted area, area specific total
are more than minimal and not not want to see that happen now. We allowable catches, and vessel
temporary. If NMFS finds that the are disappointed to see that this has not monitoring systems, among others.
adverse fishing effects on EFH are more been addressed at all in the FMP. The NMFS is following the development of
than minimal and not temporary in New England Fishery Management the FMP and will provide comments on
nature, then NMFS will have to Council is taking Amendment 7 under the plan as appropriate.
consider alternatives to reduce fishing consideration, and we would like to see Comment 18: EFH designations are
impacts. an emergency rule take place to ban intended to address the physical habitat
Comment 13: Most HMS gears such as mid-water trawling gear. and not forage species. EFH is not an
pelagic longline would not affect HMS Response: In the 1999 FMP for appropriate forum to address forage
EFH. Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, issues. For example, herring fishermen
Response: NMFS agrees that gears NMFS identified and described large could say that they cannot catch herring
used to fish for HMS, with the possible portions of the Gulf of Maine as EFH for because the BFT are eating them all. The
exception of bottom longline gear, adult BFT, and smaller portions of the timing and location of harvest is a
would have little or no impact on HMS Gulf as EFH for juvenile BFT. As set management issue, not a habitat issue.
EFH. forth in the EFH guidelines, loss of prey This is a question about access.
Comment 14: NMFS should look at species may be an adverse effect on EFH Response: The EFH guidelines state
sink gillnets and possible impacts on and managed species because the that FMPs should list the major prey
EFH. Fishermen may not want to fish on presence of prey makes waters and species for the species in the fishery
management unit and discuss the managed species. NMFS agrees that U.S. EEZ pursuant to the Magnuson-
location of prey species habitat, and that forage species may be an important Stevens Act.
loss of prey may be considered an component of HMS EFH and has taken
Economic and Social Impacts
adverse effect on EFH. Thus, NMFS steps to identify those areas.
considers it appropriate to examine the Comment 21: Shark pupping and Comment 1: The high fuel costs are
presence of Atlantic herring and their nursery areas remain unprotected. having a tremendous negative economic
role as a forage species for BFT. Conserving shark habitat is closely impact on all U.S. commercial fisheries.
Comment 19: NMFS should not draw linked with state cooperation. NMFS While prices for fuel and fuel products
too many conclusions on less than should continue to fund and encourage have dramatically risen, the price of fish
complete data. HMS species are ocean- research into shark EFH and to publish has nearly collapsed our markets far
wide. NMFS needs to get the and distribute the results of such below the levels necessary for profitable
international forum involved. They have studies. operations, due in part to a flow of
used very progressive research Response: NMFS disagrees that shark imports from largely unregulated
techniques. Predator-prey relationships pupping and nursery areas remain sources.
are important to every species. Response: NMFS recognizes that fuel
unprotected. In 2005, NMFS
Response: NMFS has been cautious in prices have recently risen to above
implemented a time/area closure off
the interpretation of data based largely average levels and continue to fluctuate.
North Carolina in shark pupping and
on presence or absence (level 1). While The Agency is monitoring the impacts
nursery areas to reduce the bycatch and
there is a great deal of ongoing research of high fuel costs and other expenses as
mortality of neonate (newborns) and
to identify and describe EFH, in many part of ongoing cost and earnings data
juvenile sandbar sharks as well as all
instances the research is localized or collection efforts in the HMS fisheries.
life stages of prohibited dusky sharks. The Agency encourages fishermen to
regional in nature, whereas HMS exhibit While there are many other areas that
trans-regional movement and participate in this data collection effort
may not have the same level of on a voluntary basis in order to improve
migrations. This makes identifying and
protection, NMFS currently closes the the quality of information available on
describing EFH for HMS particularly
large coastal shark (LCS) fishing season HMS commercial fisheries. The trend in
challenging. For example, even though
from April through June to reduce ex-vessel prices for HMS fish has varied
researchers may identify an area in the
impacts on pregnant females who may by species and is detailed in Chapter 3
Gulf of Mexico as EFH for a particular
be moving into coastal areas for of the Final Consolidated HMS FMP.
species, those habitat characteristics
pupping. Many states have The flow of imports of many HMS
may not necessarily constitute EFH for
implemented a similar closure of state products are managed by international
the same species in other regions.
waters for LCS shark fishing during agreements, include ICCAT and the
Furthermore, NMFS can only identify
and describe EFH within the U.S. EEZ, these months consistent with the supply of imports will vary based on
pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Federal regulations. Finally, most HMS market forces. Details regarding
Comment 20: The definition of EFH gears have little or no impact on HMS information concerning imports are also
for Atlantic HMS should be modified to EFH. Bottom longline gear is the only detailed in Chapter 3 of the Final
include the geographic range of the HMS gear that may affect hard bottom Consolidated HMS FMP.
species and to add the availability of habitat such as corals and sponges, but Comment 2: Holding workshops for
forage for HMS in critical areas, in time many shark pupping and nursery areas just owners and captains could have an
and space. are located outside of these habitat impact on the market. A number of
Response: The EFH guidelines require types. NMFS continues to fund shark captains coming in at the same time to
EFH to be distinguished from the research, such as surveys conducted the workshop means they will end up
geographic range of the species. The through the Cooperative Atlantic States fishing at the same time and bringing
principle of the EFH provisions in the Shark Pupping and Nursery Areas fish to the market at the same time.
Magnuson-Stevens Act was to identify (COASTSPAN) and a similar survey in Response: NMFS acknowledges that
only those areas that are essential for the Gulf of Mexico (GULFSPAN), and holding workshops that bring together
feeding, breeding, or growth to maturity, will continue to distribute the results of owners and captains at the same time
and not all areas where a particular such studies. could have an impact on local markets.
species is present. For example, if only Comment 22: NMFS must continue to As discussed in Chapter 4 of the Final
level 1 information is available, recognize that these HMS must be Consolidated HMS FMP regarding
distribution data should be evaluated to conserved through out their range workshops, the Agency plans to
identify EFH as those habitat areas most internationally. Assumptions made on minimize these impacts by timing
commonly used by the species. Level 2 partial information may not necessarily workshops to coincide with closed
through 4 information, if available, be valid Atlantic-wide. seasons, moon phases, and other events
should be used to identify EFH as the Response: NMFS agrees that it is that normally are down times for local
habitats supporting the highest relative important to consider habitat HMS fishing operations where
abundance, growth, reproduction, or conservation measures throughout the workshops will be held. Fishermen will
survival rates within the geographic range of HMS which may include also have the option of attending
range of a species. The geographic range international waters, particularly for workshops in other neighboring regions
for HMS is extremely large and would tunas, swordfish, billfish, and pelagic on different dates.
likely result in identifying all areas in sharks. NMFS has taken steps in the Comment 3: NMFS received
the EEZ as EFH. Due to the vastness of past to raise the level of awareness of comments emphasizing the economic
such an area, it would be difficult to the importance of certain habitats such importance of recreational fishing for
propose effective conservation as Sargassum at ICCAT, and will HMS and concern regarding the
measures. Narrowing or refining the continue to try to lead the effort in economic impacts additional
extent of EFH can improve NMFS’s promoting conservation of HMS EFH. regulations could have on the
ability to focus its conservation and However, as discussed in an earlier recreational sector of local economies.
management efforts on those habitats response, NMFS is only authorized to Comments include: fishing is a key part
most important to the health of the identify and describe EFH within the of the whole coastal economy and
NMFS should take care not to over- a Haas Center for Business Research and troubled by NMFS staying with limited
regulate; tourists have many options, Economic Development at the knowledge. There is additional work
and may choose not to fish if the University of West Florida study, which that can be done to understand social
regulations are too burdensome and says that the Charterboat fleet alone has and economic changes. There are lots of
decrease enjoyment; the Mid-Atlantic a $349 million economic impact on other things that can be done to
$500,000 tournament brings over 2,000 Okaloosa and Walton counties. understand how people are impacted.
people to Cape May County who will Response: The HMS FMP assesses the Recreational data is a whole area lacking
eat, sleep, and shop in this tourism impacts of regulatory alternatives on the data. The cumulative impacts section is
dependent area for the length of the HMS recreational fishery. Chapter 3 the soft underbelly of this plan. You
tournament spending an estimated provides a detailed discussion of the need to work on this section. It
$450,000 in lodging alone and this event socioeconomic impacts of the characterizes the impacts without
is very important to this tourism driven recreational HMS fleet. A full providing much evidence of assessment.
economy, providing jobs for year-round assessment of the total economic NMFS uses soft language. NMFS does
residents and students who earn college impacts of all recreational fishing is not know much about the people that
money during the summer months; and beyond the scope of this FMP. are being regulated, and that is a
the economic value of recreational The Agency notes the Destin problem.
fishing is much greater than that of Charterboat fleet study on the impacts of Response: Economic data was
commercial fishing, and according to a that fleet on the local economy. standardized to 2003 dollars in the Draft
2001 United States FWS report, the However, the impact of the HMS Consolidated HMS FMP and to 2004
value of the recreational fishery is $116 portion of the Destin Charterboat fleet is dollars in the Final Consolidated HMS
billion. not discernable from that study and thus FMP using the Consumer Price Index
Response: NMFS recognizes the only represents a portion of the $134 (CPI-U). NMFS has taken measures to
economic importance of recreational million total annual impact of enhance the information available
fishing for HMS, including its impact on recreational fishing on the local regarding social and economic changes.
tourism, lodging, and local employment. economy. The Agency has added information
Chapters 3 and 4 of the Final Comment 6: In 1989, the SAFMC regarding charter boat rates for HMS
Consolidated HMS FMP have sections documented the HMS commercial trips and angler expenditure data. Other
regarding billfish that provide extensive fisheries above the $100 million research projects throughout the Agency
information regarding the economic threshold. NMFS has a range of values regarding the impacts of the 2005
importance of recreational anglers and in various documents but certainly hurricanes and a recreational fishing
tournaments. below $40–45 million ex-vessel value. survey currently being conducted will
Comment 4: We are disturbed by the Who is responsible for the economic further enhance the Agency’s
lack of any economic data or references losses over $100 million from knowledge of the characteristics of the
for the recreational sector. This unnecessary and cumulative regulatory regulated community.
indicates a lack of concern for the discard policies?
recreational sector and ignores the Response: A combination of long-term Consolidation of the FMPs
enormous economic impact of this market forces, biological changes to Comment 1: NMFS received
sector. species populations and necessary comments in support and in opposition
Response: NMFS has taken measures regulatory activities have had an impact to the consolidation of the FMPs. Those
to improve the amount of economic data on the ex-vessel value of the HMS in support included: we support
and references regarding the fisheries. In Chapter 3 of the Final consolidation of the FMPs contingent on
recreational sector of the HMS fishery. Consolidated HMS FMP, the Agency preserving the objectives of the Atlantic
This information is detailed in Chapters notes that the ex-vessel value of the billfish plan and the original objectives
3 and 4 regarding billfish, and Chapter HMS fisheries has been estimated to be pertaining to swordfish and traditional
4 regarding authorized gear. Direct between $44 and $92 million over the swordfish handgear (harpoon and rod-
measures in this HMS FMP regarding past six years. and-reel) fisheries; and we had concerns
the recreational sector include, but are Comment 7: The information in the that several of the most important
not limited to, the authorization of community profiles is so dated that they objectives from the billfish FMP had
speargun fishing for Atlantic BAYS do not present an accurate current been left out, but we are pleased that
tunas, improving BFT quota portrayal, at least concerning the HMS NMFS has addressed those concerns by
management, and improving fisheries, which has very rapidly including them in this draft. As a result,
information gathering by requiring declined since the implementation of we now support the consolidation.
vessel owners to report non-tournament the 1999 HMS FMP measures, Those comments opposed to the
recreational landing of swordfish and especially the time/area closures consolidation include: The GMFMC and
billfish. The speargun authorization was implemented in 2000. others recommend that the HMS and
designed specifically to enhance Response: While information in Billfish FMPs and APs be kept separate;
economic opportunities associated with community profiles included in this the GMFMC and others noted that the
HMS recreational fishing sector. document are now several years old, it Billfish FMP is primarily a recreational
Comment 5: The Draft Consolidated represents the best available information FMP whereas the Atlantic Tunas,
HMS FMP does not discuss the and includes the latest U.S. Census data Swordfish and Sharks FMP is both
socioeconomic impact to the from 2000. However, NMFS intends to recreational and commercial; the U.S.
recreational fishing sector. The fishing update the community profiles. Chapter billfish fisheries are unique and
and boating industry is essential. 9 documents a list of communities that recreational only while swordfish,
Nationally, it generates $34 billion need to be further examined. The tunas, and sharks are managed to utilize
annually, which is more than the Agency recently published a solicitation country-specific quotas; the billfish
longliners. The Destin Charterboat fleet to update these profiles. fishery is the only HMS fishery to
has a study that it generates $134 Comment 8: In terms of social and practice catch-and-release; those whose
million annually to the local economy. economic issues, the data need to be efforts have saved and conserved these
A 2003 article in the Destin Log quotes standardized to recent dollars. I am species should govern it; Atlantic
billfish fishery is the most valuable the billfish fishery. Combining the FMPs should allow for more efficient and
fishery in the country and ought to should allow those changes to be effective regulations.
retain its distinct and separate status; I analyzed more holistically with clear Comment 2: NMFS received a number
have some concerns regarding the links among the impacts and issues of questions regarding the consolidation
consolidation of FMPs and managing between fisheries. For example, the including: How will the consolidation
billfish for maximum sustainable yield, Billfish FMP has only directed billfish change HMS management? How is this
when it is primarily a catch-and-release measures while the FMP for Atlantic FMP easier to comprehend? I
fishery, as no social or economic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks has understand NMFS needs to consolidate,
impacts are assessed; Puerto Rico Game bycatch reduction measures for billfish but how does this improve
Fish Association opposes the caught in the swordfish and tuna management?
consolidation due to the recreational fisheries. Combining the FMPs will Response: Consolidating the FMPs
nature of the billfish fishery and present the whole suite of billfish will not change the existing regulations
because they do not fish for shark or management measures in one since they are already consolidated.
tunas in tournaments. They are document. Rather, consolidating the FMPs should
concerned that by combining plans, NMFS believes that the decision in change how HMS fisheries are viewed
billfish will be viewed as a bycatch 1999 to combine the FMPs for tunas, and the ecological and economic
species; tuna and other offshore ‘‘meat swordfish, and sharks and to impacts analyzed. Having two separate
fish’’ species should not be consolidate the actual regulations for all FMPs can give the impression that the
‘‘consolidated’’ with billfish in HMS, while a challenge at first, has led billfish fishery does not affect the tunas,
regulatory legislation; tunas have been to a more holistic view of the fishery. swordfish, and shark fisheries and vice
traditionally treated as fish to be This view has allowed the impacts of versa. This impression is incorrect. The
harvested, not as a ‘‘catch-and-release’’ management measures on all sectors of same fishermen fish for and/or catch all
species, and they should have the issues tunas, swordfish, and shark fisheries to HMS, often on the same trip. Thus,
that concern them addressed separately be fully analyzed whereas before, the changes in the regulations need to be
from the unique circumstances links between these fisheries may not analyzed and considered across all HMS
concerning marlin and sailfish; have been seen or analyzed so readily. fisheries. For example, regulations that
economic expenditures involved in the By combining both FMPs now, NMFS limit the recreational catch of one
bluefin tuna fishery are just as is moving toward an ecosystem-based species or the gear that can be used
important as that in the marlin fishery; approach to the management of HMS. could result in changes in recreational
I favor more micro-management rather Such an approach could ultimately effort on other species or on social and
than one FMP because it takes so long benefit the resource and the people economic impacts on the entire
for changes to occur if everything is involved. As an example of potential recreational community. As described
consolidated. This way, any particular in the response to Comment 1 above,
links, at public hearings and in written
species will need an entire FMP to take consolidating the FMPs should allow
comments, recreational billfish
regulatory action; combining fishery NMFS to take a more holistic view of
fishermen have noted that using circle
management plans is an example of how HMS fisheries and analyze these links.
hooks while trolling for blue marlin is
you prejudice your research and
impracticable. Similarly, at public Those analyses should also be more
analyses. The longline fishermen come
hearings and in written comments, apparent to the affected and other
in and take the bait that the billfish seek
recreational tuna fishermen have asked interested parties. Together the analyses
reducing the number of billfish coming
for the use of circle hooks on rod and and the public comment on the analyses
in to areas that were once critical to
reel. In many cases, these fishermen fish of the impacts and the potential
their life history. A billfish FMP
for tunas and billfish, sometimes on the alternatives to a regulation should lead
approach would have been to look at
same trip. While NMFS could to more efficient and effective
bait removal or spawning and nursery
implement different regulations for management.
areas.
Response: NMFS agrees that recreational tuna trips and recreational Comment 3: NMFS received
commercial fisheries aim to fully utilize billfish trips, management can be more comments regarding the combination of
a quota, and that many recreational effective and appropriate by considering the APs. These comments included: the
fisheries practice catch-and-release the implications on all recreational number of people on the Billfish AP
fishing. NMFS also agrees that the HMS trips. should not decline; we support
billfish fishery is unique in many Combining the FMPs will not change combining the APs; it is redundant,
aspects, and notes that the individual the composition of the APs in terms of confusing and inefficient to have
tunas, swordfish, and shark fisheries representation by states and sectors separate APs; the customary joint
also have many unique aspects. NMFS (commercial, recreational, academic, or meetings of the HMS and Billfish APs
believes that these differences between conservation). Also, combining the over the past six years ensured an
the commercial and recreational FMPs will not change the priorities of imbalance of representation by the
fisheries, and the different aspects of the managing HMS, which are dictated by recreational fishing sector and the result
individual recreational fisheries, can be the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other has been lopsided and ineffective
accommodated in a consolidated FMP domestic law. Combining the advice; and the combined AP should be
just as those differences are already regulations should not affect the length fair in representing the various user
accommodated in the existing Atlantic of time it takes to amend or change the groups.
Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP. regulations. NMFS has not experienced Response: NMFS is not expecting to
Given the interconnected nature of any delays in changing the regulations change the composition of the APs as a
the billfish fishery with other HMS for a specific species or gear since result of consolidating the FMPs. Once
fisheries, both on the water and in the combining the tunas, swordfish, and this final rule is published, NMFS
regulatory and policy arenas, as well as shark FMPs. To the extent that intends to combine the APs in their
the current permitting structure, combining the FMPs will allow NMFS entirety. Over time, NMFS will adjust
changes in any of the non-billfish and the public to see links between the the number of people on the AP and/or
fisheries are likely to have impacts on fisheries easier, combining the FMPs representing each group as needed to
ensure a balanced representation of all Response: Objective 4 states that Comment 8: Regarding Objective 12,
interested sectors and regions. NMFS will establish foundations to all hook and line fishing post-release
work with other international mortality should be addressed.
Objectives of the FMP Response: NMFS believes that this
organizations to manage Atlantic HMS.
Comment 1: The proposed objectives NMFS already works with, and intends concern is already addressed in
of the Consolidated HMS FMP are to continue working with, several Objective 12.
acceptable, including all suggested international organizations regarding Comment 9: NMFS should make the
deletions and revisions, but it is not Atlantic HMS including ICCAT, NAFO, proposed deletions to Objectives 13 and
possible to continuously reduce bycatch FAO, and CITES. 14; however, if NMFS does not make
and mortality. Logically, as the status of Comment 5: Regarding Objective 4, these deletions, it must reevaluate its
stocks improve, these numbers will the old practice of ‘‘the U.S. goes proposed revisions to Objectives 2, 4, 5,
likely increase. At some point, NMFS farthest first’’ simply does not work, and and 7.
must recognize that incidental catches Response: While NMFS did suggest
often results in the U.S. being
and mortality will occur and set removing these objectives at the Predraft
diminished in its capabilities and
practical and reasonable levels of stage, NMFS did not propose removing
influence within ICCAT.
allowable incidental catch. them in the Draft Consolidated HMS
Response: Objective 4 does not state FMP due to the concern expressed by
Response: Consistent with National that the U.S. should work unilaterally to
Standard 9, NMFS aims to minimize the recreational billfish community
rebuild or maintain Atlantic HMS regarding deleting two of the original
bycatch to the extent practicable, and to stocks. Rather, Objective 4 builds in the
the extent that bycatch cannot be objectives from the 1988 Billfish FMP.
concept that NMFS will work with NMFS does not believe that these
avoided, minimize the mortality of such international bodies, such as ICCAT, to
bycatch. As described in the time/area objectives conflict with objectives 2, 4,
rebuild or maintain sustainable 5, and 7. Therefore, no changes to those
section above, NMFS continues to fisheries.
examine the impact of closures and objectives are needed.
other bycatch reduction measures to Comment 6: Objective 7 calls for the Comment 10: Please eliminate the
ensure the goals are met. Consistent management of Atlantic HMS to achieve word ‘‘almost’’ from Objective 14:
with protected species incidental take optimum yield and to provide the ‘‘Optimize the social and economic
statements, the results of the stock greatest benefit to the Nation, including benefits to the nation by reserving the
assessments, and the impact of circle food production. Atlantic billfish billfish resource for its traditional use,
hooks on bycatch rates, NMFS may should not be managed with the intent which in the continental United States
consider modifying the existing time/ to increase food supply and the 250 is almost entirely a recreational
area closures or changing existing trip marlin landing limit is not managing in fishery.’’
terms of optimum yield. This landing Response: The word ‘‘almost’’ was an
limits of the incidental limited access
limit is not based on maximum error and has been removed. The
permits.
sustainable yield, nor does it take into objective was been clarified to refer only
Comment 2: Regarding Objective 2,
account relevant social, economic, or to Atlantic billfish.
‘‘Atlantic-wide’’ is a more appropriate Comment 11: Objective 16 needs to be
term than using ‘‘management unit’’ ecological factors. This objective should
be reworded to say that Atlantic billfish rewritten or eliminated because there is
because even a total prohibition on any no method for measuring over
domestic fishing effort would not will be managed to provide the greatest
benefit to the nation with respect to capitalization in the recreational fleet.
recover the fish stock for most ICCAT Recreational fisheries should not be
species. recreational opportunities, preserving
traditional fisheries to the extent managed by fleet capacity and over
Response: NMFS agrees with the capitalization.
practicable, and taking into account
comment and made the appropriate Response: NMFS has decided to
protection of marine ecosystems.
change to Objective 2. delete Objective 16 for the reason stated
Comment 3: We are concerned about Response: NMFS agrees that Atlantic
billfish should not be managed with the by the commenter and other reasons, as
Objective 3, to reduce landings of explained in response to comment 12
Atlantic billfish in directed and non- intent to increase food supply. NMFS
has reworded Objective 7 to clarify its below.
directed fisheries. It is unnecessary to Comment 12: Objective 16, the
reduce directed landings that only come intent.
consideration of fishing effort, should
from the recreational sector. Comment 7: Objective 12 calls for the not be explicit to commercial fisheries.
Response: Objective 3 does not promotion of live release and tagging of Latent effort is only a problem in
address landings of Atlantic billfish. Atlantic HMS. We do not believe it is overcapitalized fisheries and the U.S.
Rather, Objective 3 addresses bycatch in in the Nation’s best interest to promote pelagic longline fishery is
all HMS fisheries and post-release live release for all HMS of legal size and undercapitalized. NMFS needs to
mortality of billfish in the directed those caught within a legal season encourage latent pelagic longline effort
billfish fishery. because any HMS poundage under the to become active or reopen the
Comment 4: Objective 4, establish a quota resulting from live release stands ‘‘directed’’ swordfish permit category in
foundation for international negotiation the likely fate of being transferred to a a measured, incremental manner to
of conservation and management country that will harvest the difference, allow new entrants.
measure, sounds as though the intent ultimately reducing the U.S. ICCAT Response: NMFS has deleted
would be to propose the creation of quota. This objective should be Objective 16. While Objective 16 was an
additional international management reworded to state that NMFS would important part of the limited access
entities, other than ICCAT, creating a promote live release and tagging of program established in the 1999 FMP, it
tremendous amount of unnecessary Atlantic billfish and sub-legal HMS. does not apply to all HMS commercial
bureaucracy that ultimately weakens the Response: NMFS acknowledges that fisheries. Instead, NMFS has reworded
efficient management of these important this was not the intent and has Objective 17 to create a management
species. This objective needs to be reworded the objective to address this system to make fleet capacity
clarified before final approval. issue. commensurate with resource status.
Comment 13: Regarding Objective 18, adequate public participation; NMFS slip by unnoticed. It appeared as if the
NMFS should not condone a should use the mailing and email intent of the presentation was to confuse
reallocation that is contrary to the intent addresses provided when applying for the average angler with statistical data.
of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. permits to notify the industry; NMFS Response: NMFS agrees that
Response: Objective 18 was combined has adequately informed us through information regarding stock status and
with Objective 17 and addresses fleet various sources (e.g., internet, facsimile, quotas can be confusing. However, this
capacity and resource status. This and public hearing notices) of all information is the basis for many of the
objective does not address reallocation germane and relevant issues, options, management measures that were
contrary to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. and comment deadlines; your notices proposed and will be the basis of many
are all fuzzy, full of Federal Register of the final management measures.
Comment Period/Outreach
type language - they should be earlier in Without an understanding of the basic
Comment 1: NMFS received several the process, more widely distributed, information regarding life history, stock
comments regarding the length of the and focused on the user groups in status, maximum sustainable yield, and
comment period as a result of simple language. other concepts, the reasons and impacts
hurricanes. These comments are: due to Response: NMFS agrees that public of all the alternatives considered cannot
the impacts of Hurricane Katrina on the participation and outreach regarding be explained. NMFS presented the
fishing fleets in the Gulf of Mexico and proposed or final management measures information to explain the basis of any
the lack of communication with people is critical to the management of HMS. proposals or decisions and why one
in that area, NMFS should consider a NMFS attempts to notify all interested alternative was preferred over another.
substantial extension of the comment parties of all actions using a variety of NMFS welcomes any specific comments
period and consideration of suspending methods. The official notification is on the presentations that would
the scheduled public hearings; a large through the Federal Register. The improve the clarity of the presentations.
portion of the longline fleet is damaged Federal Register is available on the web Comment 4: If NMFS accepts
and without communications - they at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ comments by email, the Agency should
cannot respond to the proposal at this index.html. Alternatively, interested require Digital Certificates to
time; we are sensitive to extension of parties can go to http:// authenticate that the comments were
comment period to accommodate the www.regulations.gov to review and from the identified party and was not
Gulf of Mexico Area, but we do not comment on all proposed rules and contaminated in transit.
want to see an overly lengthy delay in documents open for public comment Response: NMFS accepts comments
the process. throughout the Federal government. by email. To date, NMFS has not had
Response: NMFS agrees that Documents can be searched by Agency, any problems regarding authenticating
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita severely topic, and date. NMFS also releases the sender of the comment. However,
affected fishermen, infrastructures, information regarding proposed and NMFS will continue to examine this
communication, and communities in final rules and fishing seasons for HMS and other technological issues.
the Gulf of Mexico region. As a result, through the HMS fax network. NMFS Comment 5: Please limit your future
NMFS extended the comment period on intends to develop an email system that rulemakings to fewer topics. Large
the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP and will allow anyone to sign up to receive documents like this one are too difficult
proposed rule from October 18, 2005, to these information packages. These for many of your constituents to
March 1, 2006. NMFS also rescheduled information packages are also usually comprehend.
three public hearings in the area from published on Fishnews, an electronic Response: NMFS agrees that large
September/October to January and newsletter produced weekly by NMFS. documents with many issues are
February. NMFS believes that this To sign up for this newsletter, go on the difficult to understand. To the extent
extension in the comment period and web to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov. that rulemakings can be limited, NMFS
rescheduling of public hearings gave NMFS issues press releases, which the will attempt to simplify and reduce the
affected entities an opportunity to media can publish in fishing magazines issues in the future. However, to some
review and comment on the Draft and local newspapers, regarding public extent, rulemakings are dictated by
Consolidated HMS FMP and its hearings and proposed rules. However, priorities and the need to act on certain
proposed rule without delaying the NMFS cannot require these sources of issues. Thus, some rulemakings may
implementation of the management information to publish information have more issues than others.
measures significantly. regarding proposed rules or public
Comment 2: NMFS received a number General
hearings. NMFS has tried using the
of comments about the advertisement of email addresses included in the permit Comment 1: NMFS received several
public hearings and the Draft application to provide HMS fishermen comments on how the overall
Consolidated HMS FMP including: with information about their permits. rulemaking process works. These
many of the public hearings are not well Often times, the email addresses have comments include: NMFS needs to
publicized, which leads the Agency to proved incorrect and the information clarify if we have a choice or if the
miss a lot of key people at those was not delivered. Nonetheless, NMFS decision on these proposed actions is
hearings; a lot people at the fish pier did is working to improve communication already made?; what agency is pushing
not know about this hearing; NMFS with constituents and is open to for these changes?; there is an
should hold additional hearings in the additional suggestions on how to overriding opinion that NMFS does not
same areas; without better publication improve outreach. listen during these comment periods; it
to increase participation, NMFS is not Comment 3: I found the public is difficult for us to know how and
going to get enough comment from the hearing presentations completely where to get involved; during scoping,
people who are going to be affected by frustrating with biomass, metric tons, it would be nice to know that the
this rule; NMFS should improve its and other words and numbers used as information we provide is helping to
outreach to magazines; NMFS needs to if I were in a marine biology class. At form future regulations.
buy mail and email lists of anglers from the end of the presentation, the billfish Response: NMFS relies on public
publicly available sources and send and tuna changes were slipped in as if comment and participation at all stages
them meeting notices to ensure to lull us into sleep so that the changes when conducting rulemaking. The
comments received during scoping were actions to reauthorize the Magnuson- changing the time periods and
crucial for defining the scope of this Stevens Act, it cannot predict the subquotas for the General category) or
rulemaking and the alternatives outcome of the reauthorization process. provides the groundwork for future
considered. The issues explored in the If the M-S Act is reauthorized, NMFS opportunities (e.g., establishes criteria to
rulemaking were not ‘‘pushed’’ by any will implement appropriate changes in modify existing time/area closures).
particular agency. Rather they were a future rulemaking. Comment 7: Remove ‘‘including
considered as a result of the comments Comment 4: What management landings’’ from the third bullet on the
received during scoping and measures are applicable to the bottom half of page 1–40 of the Draft
management needs as dictated by the Caribbean? Plan. The emphasis is properly on
Magnuson-Stevens Act and other Response: All management measures reducing mortality and post-release
domestic laws. Public comment at the for HMS are applicable to fishermen mortality.
proposed rule stage is critical in helping fishing in the Atlantic, including the Response: This comment refers to one
NMFS decide whether to implement Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean. of the specific goals of this rulemaking,
certain measures. Often, as a result of Comment 5: NMFS is allowing so not one of the objectives of the FMP.
public comment, NMFS decides not to much overfishing of one species after NMFS agrees and has reworded the goal
implement or to redesign one or more of another, that our children have no accordingly.
the proposed management measures. expectation of there being any fish in Comment 8: In the Management
For example, in this rulemaking NMFS the ocean when they grow up. History (section 1.1), include ATCA
is not implementing several proposed Response: While overfishing does provision, ‘‘shall not disadvantage U.S.
measures including removal of the continue for some species, other species fishermen relative to their foreign
Angling Category North/South line and are being rebuilt. In the case of HMS, counterparts.’’
clarifying the commercial definition of since the 1999 FMP, blacktip sharks Response: That provision (evaluate
greenstick. When considering public have been rebuilt and other species such the likely effects of conservation and
comments, NMFS does not look at the as bigeye tuna and Atlantic sharpnose management measures on participants
quantity of public comments received sharks are still considered healthy. and minimize, to the extent practicable,
but the quality and issues raised in each NMFS continues to monitor the status of any disadvantage to U.S. fishermen in
individual comment. Every written all HMS and take appropriate action, relation to foreign competitors) is not a
comment and every statement made at consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens requirement of ATCA. It is a
a public hearing is considered. In every Act and ATCA, to prevent overfishing, requirement under the Magnuson-
final rule, NMFS responds to the rebuild overfished stocks, and maintain Stevens Act (16 U.S.C. 1854 (g)(1)(B)). A
comments received during the public optimum yield. description of this provision is included
comment period. At that time, Comment 6: For any HMS in the description of the management
interested parties can see how their management program to be effective, history in Chapter 1 and the
comments affected the decisions of the fair, and reasonable to U.S. fishermen requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens
Agency. and anglers, international transference Act in Chapter 11 of the HMS FMP.
Comment 2: I am opposed to and comparable compliance of Comment 9: In the section of Chapter
management via Petition for management mitigation measures must 1 regarding the pre 1999 Atlantic tunas
Rulemaking. It undermines the role of be adopted by the global HMS fishing management section, NMFS needs to
the Advisory Panels and the community. Our fishermen practice and clarify that the longline fishery does not
International Advisory Committee. embrace the most effective and stringent seek a directed fishery on the currently
Response: The public may petition an conservation measures in the world and overfished stock of bluefin tuna.
agency for rulemaking. NMFS is U.S. fishermen and anglers suffer Response: This section has been
required to respond to any petition that economic hardships and fishing days moved to Chapter 3 in the Final
is filed. This process does not due to these measures. However, few Consolidated HMS FMP. Together, this
undermine the role of the Advisory international partners practice any section along with the other sections in
Panel or the ICCAT Advisory Committee conservation at all. The U.S. needs to Chapter 3 regarding the landings by gear
as these parties can comment on the continue to lead the conservation and the status of the stocks indicate that
adequacy of the Petition for initiative, but it is unfair to assume that the pelagic longline fishery is prohibited
Rulemaking, as appropriate, or any other countries will follow our example from targeting bluefin tuna.
rulemaking that results from the if we only put our fishermen out of Comment 10: The HMS longline
Petition. business or deny them the opportunity fishery was unaware of NMFS’s
Comment 3: NMFS received several to fish for quota. ‘‘technical revisions’’ following
comments regarding the relationship of Response: NMFS agrees that effective completion of the HMS FMP in 1999,
the FMP to the Magnuson-Stevens Act management of HMS requires which changed the Atlantic Tunas
including: Will this FMP be consistent international cooperation and longline permit to a ‘‘limited access’’
with the revisions/reauthorization of the compliance to management measures. status. NMFS should create an
Magnuson-Stevens Act?; NMFS is not NMFS also agrees that the U.S. needs to opportunity for longline vessels with
following its own rules in regard to indicate to other nations that U.S. valid swordfish and shark permits to
National Standard 4 of the Magnuson- fishermen can meet their conservation obtain an Atlantic Tunas longline
Stevens Act (fair and equitable goals while also remaining permit. This will help to reduce or
distribution of fishing privileges). economically viable. NMFS and the eliminate unnecessary discards and
Response: The Final Consolidated Department of State continue to work encourage the return of pelagic longline
HMS FMP will be consistent with the through ICCAT to enforce compliance of fishing effort.
current Magnuson-Stevens Act, existing management measures and end Response: As described in the 1999
including the National Standards. In illegal, unreported, and unregulated Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark
regard to National Standard 4, none of fishing. Additionally, in this FMP, NMFS made the Atlantic tunas
the selected alternatives discriminate rulemaking, NMFS either provides longline permit a limited access permit,
between residents of different states. additional opportunities for U.S. along with the swordfish and shark
While NMFS is tracking congressional fishermen to take the quota (e.g., permits, at the request of the fishing
industry in order to close a potential to recreational HMS fishery interests. swordfish only if the appropriate
loophole in the regulations. The Foremost, the recreational sector is, and commercial shark and/or swordfish
technical revisions to the rule will continue to be, prominently permits have also been issued to the
implementing the 1999 FMP clarified represented on the HMS Advisory vessel.
that intent and did not make any Panel. Additionally, several large areas
ii. Commercial Fishery
substantial changes. Nonetheless, NMFS are closed year-round or seasonally to
intends to conduct a rulemaking to commercial HMS longline vessels, Comment 13: The U.S. should inflict
reform certain aspects of the HMS whereas recreational anglers retain full penalties and tariffs on countries that do
permitting system and may consider access to these areas. The recreational not follow similar rules as the U.S.;
changes based on this concern in that sector has benefited greatly from this push to stop longlining worldwide; stop
rulemaking. access, and is currently enjoying the all longlining in the United States now;
resurgence of recreational fishing for and make it illegal to import any fish
i. Recreational from other countries that longline, do
swordfish and other species in these
Comment 11: NMFS received general areas. Also, the commercial sale of not follow conservation limits, and do
comments related to recreational fishing Atlantic billfish has been prohibited not require longlines to only use circle
including: I will not stand for the over- since 1988. To reinforce the recreational hooks.
regulation of recreational fishing; and, nature of this fishery, this rule prohibits Response: The U.S. has been a leader
NMFS has done nothing for the the possession or retention of any internationally in promoting fishing
recreational fisherman but give him Atlantic billfish for vessels issued a practices that reduce bycatch and
table scraps and ruined fishery commercial permit and operating promote conservation of HMS and other
resources. outside of a tournament. This rule also fish stocks. Pelagic longlining gear is not
Response: NMFS recognizes the value prohibits fishing for HMS in the being prohibited at this time due to
and important contribution of Madison-Swanson and Steamboat reasons discussed in the response to
recreational fishermen throughout HMS Lumps Marine Reserves, with the Comment 36 of the Time/Area Closures
fisheries. The Agency continues to take notable exception that high-speed section. NMFS believes that
numerous steps to recognize this critical trolling is allowed during the prime international cooperation, including
sector of the fishery, while ensuring that recreational summer fishing months. sharing science and technology such as
recreational effort is properly accounted Comment 12: Recreational fishing circle hooks and bycatch reduction
for and managed to assist stock should be truly recreational fishing. A gears, is the primary and most effective
recovery. Comments from the CHB vessel operator knows where to go means to achieve conservation goals.
recreational sector, and others, were fishing, so it gives the recreational The U.S. will continue to promote these
fully considered in deciding upon the fisherman onboard an advantage. CHB types of measures both domestically and
management measures in the Final vessel operators use this expertise to sell internationally, and will encourage
Consolidated HMS FMP. For example, the catch from the recreational fishery. efforts by other countries to implement
NMFS did not select the alternative that This practice gives access to the similar measures.
would have prohibited landings of recreational fishery where only the Comment 14: Are fish that are caught
white marlin based, in part, upon commercial fishermen typically go. The by commercial permit holders and
comments indicating that this CHB vessel is already getting paid to go retained for personal use counted
alternative could produce sizeable out there, he does not need to also get against the quota?
adverse social and economic impacts money from selling the tunas. NMFS Response: This rule prohibits vessels
upon recreational fishermen. NMFS should decrease bag limits on charter/ issued commercial permits and
believes, however, that the selected headboats to avoid incentive to sell operating outside of a tournament from
alternative to require circle hooks when recreationally caught fish. possessing, retaining, or taking Atlantic
using natural baits in billfish Response: NMFS regulates and billfish from the management unit.
tournaments is appropriate, and is not manages HMS CHB permit holders Under this rule, only fishermen issued
overly burdensome. Many HMS differently than HMS recreational or either an HMS Angling or Charter/
recreational anglers already practice commercial permit holders due to the headboat permit could take or possess
catch and release fishing for white unique characteristics of the CHB sector. Atlantic billfish. Additionally, General
marlin and other species. However, the These vessels may be both recreational category fishermen fishing in a
mortality rate associated with catch and and commercial, so the regulations registered tournament could take and
release of these species is now estimated governing them are necessarily possess Atlantic billfish. In the case of
to be substantially higher than different. For instance, some CHB General category fishermen
previously thought. The use of circle captains may fish commercially for participating in a tournament, the
hooks when deploying natural bait in tunas on one trip, and then fish under tournament operator must report any
billfish tournaments is an important recreational retention limits when billfish landed in the tournament.
step towards reducing billfish fishing carrying paying passengers the next day. Charter/headboat vessel owners are
mortality, and will help to maintain the NMFS believes that the regulations required to report billfish under the
highest availability of billfishes to the governing the sale of HMS from CHB recreational reporting requirements.
United States recreational fishery. vessels are appropriate. CHB vessels Atlantic marlin landings are counted
Billfish tournament anglers must that also possess commercial limited against the 250–fish landing limit. All
comply with the new circle hook access permits are subject to landings from commercial shark or
requirement so that these species may recreational catch limits when engaged swordfish vessels must be reported in
better survive the catch and release in for-hire fishing, but may sell tunas the HMS logbook, if selected for
experience. NMFS strongly disagrees (except for BFT caught under the reporting, regardless of whether the fish
with the comment that recreational recreational angling category are retained for personal use. Sharks
fishermen have been given table scraps regulations, i.e., BFT between 27 inches landed by commercial permit holders
and ruined fishery resources. Numerous and 73 inches CFL or trophy fish greater are counted against commercial quotas.
examples could be cited to demonstrate than 73 inches) on non for-hire trips. A swordfish from the North Atlantic
the balanced consideration that is given CHB vessels may sell sharks and stock caught prior to a directed fishery
closure by a vessel with a directed or iii. Longline and disentanglement gear, a

handgear swordfish permit is counted Comment 17: Why are there no reexamination of the live bait
against the directed fishery quota. A proposed measures for the commercial prohibition may be warranted. Before
North Atlantic swordfish landed by a PLL fishery in the Draft Consolidated this issue could be considered in a
vessel issued an incidental swordfish HMS FMP? future rulemaking, it would be
permit or a Charter/headboat permit or Response: Many measures in the HMS beneficial to obtain additional gear
landed after the directed swordfish FMP could have ancillary impacts on research information, such as bycatch
fishery is closed is counted against the PLL fishery such as the selected rates and post-release mortality rates of
incidental catch quota. Owners of alternative C3, going to ICCAT regarding billfish on PLL gear deploying large
Atlantic Tunas vessels must also report a rebuilding plan for northern albacore circle hooks with both live and dead
landings in the HMS logbook, if selected tuna, and the selected alternative G2, baits.
for reporting. There are no quotas for Comment 19: Without a relaxation of
the transition to a calendar year fishing
bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, or skipjack the restrictions, the longline fishery will
years. There are also alternatives that
tunas. BFT landed but not sold must be continue to fail — not due to stock
specifically consider the PLL fishery.
reported and are applied to the quota declines but due to over-restrictions.
All of the alternatives in the time/area Response: The PLL fishery has
category according to the permit closure section, except for alternative
category of the vessel from which it was decreased in size over time possibly due
B6, were considered for the PLL fishery to current time/area closures but also
landed.
in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP. due to other factors, which are out of
Comment 15: All commercial vessels
that have not landed a fish in the past NMFS is not selecting, at this time, to NMFS control (e.g., hurricanes, fuel
three years should be ‘‘retired.’’ implement any new closures, except the prices, etc.). At this time, NMFS is not
Response: Commercial fishermen can complementary measures in the implementing any new closures, except
take time away from fishing for certain Madison-Swanson and Steamboat the complementary measures in the
species for numerous reasons including Lumps Marine Reserves, which will Madison-Swanson and Steamboat
repairs or replacement of vessels, a prohibit fishing for and possessing all Lumps Marine Reserves. The U.S. has
desire to help rebuild the stocks, or to HMS by all HMS gears in the marine not been able to catch its swordfish
pursue opportunities in other fisheries. reserves from November through April ICCAT quota allocation. While NMFS
Many PLL or shark fishermen have (except when transiting and the gear is considered modifications to current
currently stopped fishing for HMS due stowed). The possession of Gulf reef fish time/area closures, none of the
to restrictions such as the time/area in these areas is already prohibited year- modifications considered would have
closures and short shark seasons. round (except when transiting and the resulted in a large enough increase in
Additionally, for some commercial gear is stowed). From May through target catch to alleviate concerns over
fisheries, such as the BFT General October, surface trolling will be the only uncaught portions of the swordfish
category fishery, the quota does not allowable HMS fishing activity. No new quota. NMFS is investigating ways to
allow every permit holder to land a fish measures were proposed at this time revitalize the swordfish fishery and is
every year. Thus, some vessels may not because there are already a number of waiting on the results of the ICCAT
land a BFT for several years. In some restrictions, including time/area stock assessments to help determine
fisheries, such as those that are severely closures, gear requirements, VMS, domestic measures with regard to
overfished, such a measure may be observers, and a host of other measures management of these species.
needed to ensure that latent permit required to reduce bycatch in the PLL
fishery. However, NMFS will continue iv. Swordfish
holders cannot re-enter the fishery and
increase effort. NMFS may conduct a to examine the issue of targeted time/ Comment 20: NMFS received
rulemaking in the future to reform the area closures to further reduce bycatch comments regarding the trade of
current permit structure. At that time, in the future. Other alternatives that swordfish including: Is there anything
NMFS may consider measures such as could specifically affect PLL fishermen in the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP
this one, as necessary. include workshops, changes to the regarding the import of swordfish from
Comment 16: NMFS heard two definition of PLL gear, modifications to countries that have exceeded their
opposing comments related to the definition of the East Florida Coast ICCAT quota? This exceedance has been
commercial vessels affected by the closed area, and the decision regarding a perennial problem at ICCAT Advisory
hurricanes last fall. These comments the 25 mt BFT available in the NED. Committee Meetings and it is annoying
were: NMFS needs to provide buyout Comment 18: NMFS should allow the when fishermen say that this type of
programs for the commercial fishery, practice of using live baits on PLL gear fishing encroaches on ‘‘our’’ fishery
especially now that vessels active in this again. when it is the fishery as a whole, not
fishery have been affected by hurricane Response: Currently in the Gulf of only the U.S. swordfish fishery; U.S.
Katrina; and NMFS should not Mexico, vessels with PLL gear onboard swordfish fishermen should be provided
subsidize the replacement of are prohibited from deploying or fishing reasonable opportunity to harvest quota
commercial vessels affected by with live bait, possessing live bait, or - U.S. has a high demand that U.S.
hurricane Katrina. setting up a well or tank to maintain live fishermen should have an opportunity
Response: NMFS is still analyzing the bait. This prohibition was implemented to fill; NMFS should prohibit all
impacts of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina in lieu of closing the western Gulf of imports on swordfish and tuna.
on fishermen and communities in the Mexico through a final rule published Response: ICCAT is an international
Gulf of Mexico. At this time, NMFS on August 1, 2000 (65 FR 47214), and organization that addresses quota
does not know the extent of lasting became effective on September 1, 2000. overages and penalties associated with
damage or the most appropriate It was established to reduce the bycatch those overages through a process that
measures needed to rebuild the affected of billfish on PLL gear, and this remains requires the adoption of
fisheries, either commercial or an important priority. However, given recommendations and then
recreational. NMFS will take the the recent mandatory requirement for implementation of those
appropriate actions in the future, as PLL vessels to possess and deploy only recommendations by contracting
needed. large circle hooks and to carry release parties. The U.S. is a contracting party
at ICCAT and participates in the increase the number of swordfish that Reduction Team that is considering
evaluation of compliance with quotas. may be kept by swordfish incidental methods of reducing interactions under
Quota compliance is an important issue permit holders in the Gulf of Mexico or the Marine Mammal Protection Act),
right now for the U.S. during ICCAT convert all Gulf of Mexico incidental and catches of marlin, BFT, and other
negotiations. However, ICCAT would be permits to directed permits; adjust the overfished species. Over time,
the lead in imposing trade sanctions or existing PLL time/area closures within consistent with the objectives of this
other appropriate penalties on a the U.S. EEZ in consideration of a fully FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
particular country if found to be rebuilt North Atlantic swordfish stock Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the
violating ICCAT agreements. Such and the U.S. swordfish fishery’s ability ESA, NMFS intends to revitalize the
actions have been taken by ICCAT in the to harvest its ICCAT quota share; fishery so that swordfish are harvested
past. Also, NMFS agrees that longline fishermen made great sacrifices in a sustainable and economically viable
overharvests of ICCAT quotas affect the to rebuild this fish stock and have been manner and bycatch is minimized to the
entire swordfish fishery and not just the the world’s leading innovators of extent practicable.
U.S. allocation, and it is important to ‘‘bycatch friendlier’’ pelagic hook and Comment 22: NMFS received
manage the fishery as a whole and not line fishing — NMFS must take action comments regarding the trip limit for
to become too focused on just the U.S. to revitalize this fishery. swordfish incidental limited access
quota. NMFS is currently working on Response: For the past several years, permit holders. These comments
different ways to revitalize the U.S. the swordfish fishery has been unable to included: NMFS must reevaluate the
swordfish fishery. An SCRS stock incidental swordfish trip limits in order
catch the full quota. This is a change
assessment is scheduled for 2006, and to reduce or eliminate unnecessary
from the fishery in the 1990s where the
the results from this stock assessment discards by valid permit holders; there
quota was usually taken. In 1997, the
will help determine domestic measures was an allowance of five swordfish in
quota was overharvested and the fishery
for this species. the squid fishery. If a swordfish comes
was closed. There are a number of
aboard in a trawl, it is dead. Mid-water
Comment 21: NMFS received possible explanations for the inability of
trawls are not directing or targeting
comments regarding the need to the fleet to harvest the quota including
swordfish. So, can there be an
revitalize the PLL and/or swordfish time/area closures to PLL (the primary
allowance for 15 swordfish in a mid-
fishery including: in the face of our gear used to harvest swordfish), the
water trawl? It seems to be a waste to
consistently rolled-over quota and fully- reduction in permit holders through throw dead swordfish overboard.
rebuilt swordfish stock, why are there limited access, the restrictions on vessel Response: The current trip limits for
no provisions to allow for U.S. upgrading, the incidental take limits, incidental permit holders and permit
fishermen to get newer, more efficient, and the paucity of reporting from the holders using mid-water trawls were
and safer vessels?; NMFS should recreational sector. Given the implemented in 1999 as part of the
eliminate the vessel upgrading anticipated rebuilt status of swordfish limited access program for swordfish. At
restrictions to help revitalize the PLL (the next stock assessment is scheduled that time, swordfish were overfished,
fishery; what is there in the Draft for September 2006), a number of there were a number of latent permit
Consolidated HMS FMP that would fishermen and others have asked NMFS holders, and the quota was being
allow the U.S. ICCAT Delegation to to revitalize this fishery. Many people landed. Thus, the limited number of
convince foreign ICCAT Delegations are concerned that without a plan to swordfish that could be landed by
that the U.S. is serious about revitalizing revitalize the fishery, the quota will be incidental permit holders or permit
its swordfish fishery in order to utilize taken from the U.S. and given to other holders using mid-water trawls (an
the full U.S. ICCAT swordfish quota?; countries, many of which do not view unauthorized gear) was appropriate and
NMFS should make reasonable conservation as the U.S. does. NMFS is was aimed at reducing swordfish
adjustments to the offshore borders of also concerned about the status of this mortality by fishermen not targeting
existing closed areas; eliminate the fishery and its quota. While this swordfish, to the extent practicable. The
limited access upgrading criteria; re- rulemaking was not intended to situation has now changed and,
evaluate the use of ‘‘live bait’’ for circle revitalize the swordfish fishery, many of depending on the results of the
hooks only; provide a more reasonable the actions will allow for actions to be upcoming 2006 stock assessment, NMFS
trip limit for incidental PLL to eliminate taken in the future. For example, NMFS may reconsider these limits in a future
wasteful and unnecessary regulatory did not choose to modify any existing rulemaking.
discarding; re-open the swordfish closures at this time but the selected Comment 23: U.S. recreational
handgear fisheries, especially in light of criteria will allow for modifications to fishermen should be allowed to sell
the inability of the U.S. to land its the closed areas and/or experiments to their swordfish.
current ICCAT quota; the U.S. is looking test gears or other fishing methods in Response: Under current HMS
at a stockpile for swordfish and BFT; if the closed areas. Additionally, NMFS is regulations, recreational fishermen are
the U.S. does not have any quota it will defining buoy gear and clarifying the not allowed to sell HMS. If fishermen
be difficult to have a voice in difference between this commercial gear wish to sell their swordfish, they must
international negotiations; $86 million and the primarily recreational gear of possess a commercial swordfish limited
of swordfish was not caught; this handline. Depending on the stock access permit or obtain one from
domestic fleet is so over restricted that assessment and the upcoming ICCAT commercial fishermen who are leaving
it cannot harvest the quota; count recommendations, NMFS expects to the fishery. Anecdotal information
recreational swordfish live and dead engage in rulemaking in the near future indicates there are a number of
releases as well as commercial catches that could help revitalize the swordfish commercial swordfish permits available.
when negotiating the U.S. quota at fishery. Any effort to revitalize the However, depending on the type of
ICCAT; eliminate the recreational bag fishery must take care not to increase swordfish permit obtained (directed,
limit to be replaced with a higher sea turtle takes (the PLL fishery has a handgear, or incidental) these permits
minimum size of 47 inches LJFL and jeopardy conclusion under ESA for could restrict fishermen to the
authorize anyone holding a general leatherback sea turtles), marine mammal commercial suite of permits and they
category tuna permit to land swordfish; interactions (there is a PLL Take would not be able to obtain either an
HMS Angling or HMS Charter/Headboat filleting at-sea allows for a quicker turn several shark management measures in
permit. All recreational landings are around time between trips. It will not this final rule that will address
counted against the domestic quota for compromise enforcement of size limits, overfishing of finetooth sharks, improve
swordfish (300 mt dw of the quota are retention limits, and species shark dealer identification of
allocated for recreational landings). identification. Retaining the racks can commercially harvested shark species,
Comments in the past have indicated facilitate enforcement. and require fishermen to leave the
concern to the public health regarding Response: Under current regulations second dorsal and anal fin on all
the quality of recreationally-caught at 50 CFR 635.30(a), ‘‘persons who own commercially landed sharks to facilitate
swordfish. These commenters have or operate a fishing vessel that possesses improved identification, among others.
noted that while commercial fishermen an Atlantic tuna in the Atlantic Ocean Furthermore, the HMS Management
are trained and have the facilities to or that lands an Atlantic tuna in an Division is currently engaged in a
maintain fresh swordfish, recreational Atlantic coastal port must maintain proposed rulemaking (March, 29, 2006;
fishermen generally keep the swordfish such Atlantic tuna through offloading 71 FR 15680) that may facilitate
in a cooler. Nevertheless, as discussed either in round form or eviscerated with improved handling, release, and
in Comment 22 above, fishermen have the head and fins removed, provided disentanglement of non-target bycatch,
requested that NMFS revitalize the that one pectoral fin and the tail remain including sharks, sea turtles, and
swordfish fishery. The suggestion in this attached.’’ ‘‘Eviscerated’’ is defined as a smalltooth sawfish. NMFS recently
comment may be one potential option fish that has only the alimentary organs released a dusky shark assessment (May
for such a goal. removed. The regulations are intended 25, 2006; 71 FR 30123), and is
to aid in enforcing the minimum size considering the results of the Canadian
v. Tunas limit, retention limits, and species porbeagle assessment. The final LCS
Comment 24: The Draft Consolidated identification. Over the past several stock assessment review workshop was
HMS FMP does not consider the years, the HMS CHB industry, more held in June of this year, and the SCS
uncertainty associated with estimates of specifically the headboat sector, has stock assessment workshops will begin
recent BFT recruitment in recent years, requested that it be exempt from the in 2007. Additional management
the probable outcomes for BFT under current regulations and allowed to fillet measures for shark fisheries in the
different estimates, or the impact on Atlantic tunas at sea. While authorizing Atlantic Ocean may be implemented in
rebuilding of the current high mortality filleting at-sea may have social and the future, as necessary.
in the Gulf of Mexico. The Draft economic benefits for the industry as Comment 27: NMFS should release
Consolidated HMS FMP needs to the commenter suggests, waiving the and begin work to address the findings
consider this while also keeping in current regulations could render of LCS assessment as soon as possible.
mind the feasibility of changing ICCAT enforcement of size limits, retention Response: The LCS stock assessment
management measures and quotas at the limits, and species identification is following the SEDAR process, which
upcoming ICCAT meeting. difficult, thus NMFS is not able to emphasizes constituent and stakeholder
Response: The ecological impacts of authorize such actions at this time. participation in assessment
this final action on BFT are at most, development and transparency in the
minimal. The overall quotas for each vi. Sharks assessment process. As documents
domestic fishing category are not Comment 26: NMFS has placed related to the LCS assessment are
changed, nor are the size classes of BFT sharks as the lowest priority. NMFS has completed they have been placed on the
that each domestic category targets. The not adequately addressed persistent SEDAR webpage at: http://
selected alternatives for BFT comply overfishing, population depletion, and www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/. The final
with the ICCAT BFT rebuilding plan, the need for a precautionary approach LCS review workshop was held on June
which considers the uncertainty with regard to a number of 5–9, 2006. NMFS will review the final
associated with BFT stock assessment exceptionally vulnerable coastal and determinations from the workshop and
analyses and reviews the efficacy of pelagic shark species. The Draft proceed with regulatory or management
additional management options to Consolidated HMS FMP lacks goals, actions as necessary, consistent with
reduce BFT bycatch in the Gulf of timetables, and milestones toward Magnuson-Stevens Act, the HMS FMP,
Mexico. The selected alternatives also conserving sharks and their habitats. and other federal laws.
continues the prohibition on directed Response: The implementing Comment 28: NMFS has relaxed the
fishing for BFT in the Gulf of Mexico. regulations for Amendment 1 to the conservation framework for
ICCAT is scheduled to reassess the West 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, exceptionally vulnerable deepwater
Atlantic BFT stock in June 2006, and the Swordfish, and Sharks (December 24, sharks by removing this special
assessment will be evaluated at the 2003; 68 FR 74746) included grouping from the management unit.
upcoming annual ICCAT meeting in management measures to address Contrary to NFMS assertions, the
November 2006. NMFS will implement overfishing and population depletion of finning prohibition alone is not
any changes to the rebuilding plan as sharks. These management measures sufficient to conserve these species.
required under ATCA. included, but were not limited to: NMFS should add deepwater sharks to
Comment 25: Filleting tunas at-sea aggregating the LCS shark complex, the list of prohibited shark species in
should be acceptable on HMS CHB using MSY as a basis for setting subsequent rulemaking.
vessels. By allowing filleting at-sea, the commercial quotas, implementing a Response: The deepwater sharks were
catch can be prepared and put on ice 4,000 lb trip limit in the commercial added to the management unit in 1999
much sooner than if cleaning occurs LCS fishery, establishing regional because the Agency wanted to ensure
upon returning to the dock; it will be commercial quotas and trimester that finning was prohibited for all
better for public safety because tuna seasons, establishing gear restrictions to sharks, including deepwater sharks.
deteriorate quickly in warm summer reduce bycatch, and establishment of a When deepwater sharks were included
and fall months; and preparing tuna time area closure in the mid Atlantic in the management unit, there were no
sooner also improves the quality of the region from January to July each year to other management regulations in place
meat, and ultimately, angler satisfaction. reduce interactions with sandbar and (i.e., permitting, reporting, trip limits,
The season is relatively short, so prohibited dusky sharks. There are also minimum size). NMFS believes that
maintaining data collection only on the we are concerned about the Response: NMFS did not consider
deepwater sharks is sufficient because continuation of the directed quota for changes to the prohibited species
they are not targeted in the shark Northwest Atlantic porbeagles, given management unit in this rulemaking.
fishery. Prohibiting landings of these that this population has been proposed Amendment 1 to the 1999 FMP for
species would not likely reduce as ‘‘Endangered’’ by the IUCN SSG and Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks
mortality, as most of these sharks are Canada; NMFS should end the directed established criteria for addition or
dead at haulback and take of these fishery for porbeagles by eliminating the removal of species to/from the
species is a rare occurrence. directed commercial quota and allowing prohibited species group. These four
Furthermore, NMFS does not want to only incidental landings; we support criteria include: there is sufficient
further jeopardize the collection of data NMFS stated interest in working with biological information to indicate that
on these species, which is a rare event, Canada to address porbeagle stock warrants protection, the species is
by including them in the prohibited conservation - such negotiations will be rarely encountered or observed caught
species management unit. Currently, on more successful if the U.S. takes action in HMS fisheries, the species is not
the rare occasions when fishermen catch to end directed porbeagle fisheries in commonly encountered or caught as
a deepwater shark, they can give it to a U.S. waters; the U.S. should bycatch in fishing operations, and the
scientist. If the species were prohibited, aggressively pursue no directed species is difficult to distinguish from
every fisherman and scientist who porbeagle shark fisheries with Canada other prohibited species. NMFS may
might catch a deepwater shark and who and within ICCAT. consider changes to the prohibited
would want to retain any part of it for Response: The U.S. has, on average, species management unit in a future
research would need to have an EFP on landed less than 1 mt of porbeagle rulemaking, if necessary.
the off chance that such a shark would sharks in the last four years, most of Comment 33: Because smooth dogfish
be caught. Nonetheless, if directed which was incidental, not directed is the only U.S. Atlantic shark that is
fisheries for deepwater sharks are catch. NMFS, however recognizes the subject to a directed fishery and not
developed and/or extensive landings of ecological significance of the historical covered by management measures,
these species begins to occur as bycatch decline in porbeagle sharks, and is NMFS should evaluate this fishery and
in other fisheries, the Agency may currently considering the stock assess the population. NMFS should
implement additional measures. assessment report recently completed by begin this work immediately, present
Comment 29: NMFS needs to review Canada in the fall of 2005. Management the findings to the Mid-Atlantic
and release the long-awaited population alternatives and regulations to prevent Fisheries Management Council
assessment for dusky sharks, as a matter further declines in the porbeagle stocks (MAFMC), and suggest a way forward as
of priority. We are concerned about the will likely be considered in upcoming soon as possible.
more than 23,000 dusky sharks landed rulemaking actions, if necessary. Response: During the summer of
in 2003, despite their prohibited species
Comment 31: NMFS needs to make 2005, NMFS received a request from the
status. NMFS should investigate and
permits available to Puerto Rican shark MAFMC to transfer management of
address this problem immediately.
Response: The Southeast Fishery fishermen or allow them to retain sharks smooth dogfish to the council. NMFS
Science Center recently released the since they are retaining sharks anyway. asked for more information regarding
dusky shark assessment (May 25, 2006; Response: All fishermen fishing for why the MAFMC should have sole
71 FR 30123). This document is HMS are already required through state jurisdiction over the stock. NMFS
available on the internet (http:// regulations to have the appropriate HMS continues to wait for a response and
www.sefscpanamalab.noaa.gov/shark/ permits when fishing in state waters. will work with the Regional Fishery
pdf/DuskylSharklAssessment.zip). Additionally, shark fishermen fishing in Management Council(s) to determine
NMFS is also concerned about the status Federal waters are required to have the the appropriate management body for
of dusky sharks; hence, this species has appropriate Federal HMS permit this species.
been on the prohibited species list since consistent with Federal regulations. Comment 34: EPA noted that bycatch
1999. In 2003, 23,288 lb dw of dusky Fishermen from all states and territories, of SCS in the Gulf shrimp fishery fell
sharks were reported landed in including Puerto Rico and the Virgin approximately 46 percent following the
commercial shark fisheries. In 2004, Islands, may face enforcement action if introduction of turtle excluder devices
only 1,025 lb dw of dusky sharks were they do not comply with Federal in 1999. If this trend continues, this
landed. Effective January 1, 2005, the regulations. represents an encouraging level of
mid-Atlantic time/area closure closed Comment 32: NMFS received two success for the use of turtle excluder
commercial shark fishing with bottom comments regarding the need to propose devices. EPA also noted that data entries
longline gear from January 1 through options for adding sharks to the for Table 3.90 in the Draft Consolidated
July 31 of every year. This area was prohibited species list including: NMFS HMS FMP for the year 1999 and 2000
closed in part to reduce commercial has offered no alternatives in the Draft were the same and assumed that 2000
fishery interactions with dusky sharks. Consolidated HMS FMP to address data were estimated.
NMFS may also implement additional depletion of these species (oceanic Response: NMFS agrees that turtle
management measures as a result of the whitetip, silky sharks, and excluder devices should reduce the
recently released dusky shark hammerheads); these species are not amount of bycatch. Regarding 1999 and
assessment. targeted but measures to avoid and 2000 data, 1999 data were calculated as
Comment 30: NMFS received reduce bycatch of these species are the average of the value of 1992 to 1997
comments regarding management of urgently needed. To reduce regulatory divided by two in order to account for
porbeagle sharks including: The discards within the directed and the effect of the turtle excluder devices.
porbeagle population is 11 percent of its incidental shark fishing fleets, NMFS Data from 2000 were assumed to be the
size in 1961 which is too low; Canada should consider removing certain same as the 1999 data.
has already listed porbeagle sharks as species of sharks from the prohibited Comment 35: EPA notes that Table
endangered - the U.S. needs to prohibit species list, such as bignose, Caribbean 3.90 indicates that the dressed weights
all landing immediately and eliminate reef, dusky, Galapagos, night, sand tiger, of SCS are approximately one pound per
the directed quota for porbeagle sharks; and Caribbean sharpnose. shark. This suggests that these are small
sharks that would have little their purview (i.e., Gulf of Mexico intended to reduce the bycatch of non-
commercial value. shrimp and menhaden fisheries). target species and protected resources in
Response: SCS are generally the small Response: NMFS agrees that the pelagic longline fishery.
sharks, and they have the lowest cooperation amongst the States, Comment 40: NMFS should allow
commercial value of all Atlantic sharks, Regional Fishery Management Councils, longline fishermen to sell their bycatch
generally less than $0.50 per pound. and the Agency can help to address for charity.
Many fishermen use these species as bycatch issues, particularly in those Response: Commercial fishermen are
bait. In 2004, not including shark fin fisheries that cross jurisdictional already allowed to sell their catch for
values, the SCS fishery was worth boundaries. NMFS has contacted the whatever purpose unless it is a
approximately $340,000 compared to Gulf and South Atlantic States and prohibited species or specific
$2.7M for LCS and just over $500,000 Regional Fishery Management Councils regulations prohibit its retention such as
for pelagic sharks. in an attempt to identify fisheries where the season is closed, quota has been
finetooth shark bycatch may be met, the fish is undersized, or the
vii. Fishing Mortality and Bycatch animal is a protected resource.
occurring. NMFS also consulted with all
Reduction Comment 41: NMFS received several
Regional Fishery Management Councils
Comment 36: Table 3.24 contains an and both the Atlantic and Gulf States comments regarding the need for
error that has been repeated in several Marine Fisheries Commissions additional research including: NMFS
documents. The Technical regarding the Draft Consolidated HMS should research live baiting using circle
Memorandum — SEFSC–515 cited as FMP and its proposed measures. hooks as a technique to increase catch
Garrison 2003 contains an error in Comment 39: NMFS has failed to of YFT and reduce bycatch; NMFS
addition concerning the total number of meaningfully reduce longline bycatch should conduct and/or continue
observed sets (both Total and non-NED) since 1997. While time/area closures experiments on non-offset circle hooks,
for 2001. The correct Total is 584 and give the appearance that something is circle hooks 20/0 and larger, bait
non-NED is 398, which would change being done, this is not the only answer. options, and post-hooking effects.
the correct percentages to 5.4 percent Response: NMFS disagrees that Response: NMFS agrees that
and 3.7 percent, respectively. Also the longline bycatch has not been additional research can be conducted on
2002 Non-NED percentage should be 3.9 meaningfully reduced. NMFS analyzed a number of topics, including those in
percent. Lance Garrison confirms these the reported landings and bycatch in the this comment and other comments
inadvertent errors in his published pelagic longline fishery from 1997–99 throughout this final rule, to evaluate
errata affixed to the document. versus 2001–03 to measure the their effectiveness in reducing bycatch
Response: NMFS has made the effectiveness of the time/area closures of non-target species and protected
requested corrections. implemented in 2000–01. The analyses resources. NMFS intends to continue to
Comment 37: Has NMFS considered showed that the existing closures have evaluate research proposals in many of
the fact that the Gulf of Mexico is a been effective at reducing bycatch of these areas. New research is dependent
special region with special needs? protected species and non-target HMS on funding availability.
Could there be regulations on a regional and have provided positive ecological Comment 42: In our scoping
basis (i.e., regulations different for the benefits. For example, the overall comments, we set forth a proposal for
Gulf of Mexico from that of other number of reported discards of NMFS to consider regarding bycatch.
regions)? swordfish, bluefin and bigeye tunas, NMFS left that proposal out of the draft
Response: It is possible to implement pelagic sharks, blue and white marlin, FMP even though it is required under
regulations on an area-specific basis to sailfish, and spearfish have all declined international and domestic laws to
fit the special needs of a fishery by more than 30 percent. The reported develop fully and analyze that proposal.
whenever possible. NMFS has discards of blue and white marlin Response: While every comment is
implemented different regulations for declined by about 50 percent and considered, NMFS disagrees that all
the pelagic longline fishery on an area- sailfish discards declined by almost 75 comments offered during the scoping
specific basis in the past. For instance, percent. The reported number of sea process need to be developed fully and
a live bait prohibition for this fishery turtles caught and released declined by analyzed. The Agency considered a
has been implemented in the Gulf of almost 28 percent. broad range of alternatives to address
Mexico in an attempt to reduce the It appears that bluefin tuna discards bycatch in the Draft FMP, however, not
bycatch of billfish. NMFS has also in the MAB and NEC have been reduced all of these were fully developed and
implemented regional allocations and considerably since the implementation analyzed for a variety of reasons. There
seasons for LCS and SCS including ones of the June closure in 1999. Reported may have been more effective
for the Gulf of Mexico, and BFT discards of BFT prior to implementation alternatives considered for further
regulations in the Gulf of Mexico are of the closure ranged from 558 to over analysis or a proposed measure was
different than those along the east coast. 2,700 per year. Since 1999, the number found to not meet the needs or
Another example of regionally-specific of bluefin tuna reported discarded has objectives of the FMP, and therefore was
regulations is the requirement to use remained below 500 per year. The not considered further.
only 18/0 or larger circle hooks in the number of swordfish kept in the MAB Comment 43: NMFS received
NED for the pelagic longline fishery and NEC has increased since the closure comments about the need to implement
while requiring 16/0 or larger circle was implemented while the number of a cap or quota on bycatch. These
hooks elsewhere. NMFS will continue billfish discarded has declined. comments include: to reduce bycatch,
to evaluate alternative management NMFS agrees that time/area closures NMFS should implement a hard cap
measures in light of the specific needs are not the only management tool that system. Such a system would, among
of a fishery when possible. can be utilized to reduce bycatch. NMFS other things, set limits on fishing
Comment 38: NMFS should request has also implemented circle hook and mortality of marine life, provide
that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery bait requirements for the pelagic accountability by dividing limits
Management Council and the Gulf states longline fishery and a live bait between fishing sectors, set limits that
cooperate with NMFS to minimize shark prohibition for that fishery in the Gulf would stop fishing for that sector,
bycatch associated with fisheries under of Mexico as well. These measures are reward clean fishing, prevent a race to
fish, and reduce bycatch. Such caps each conservation and management Rago et al., (2005) examined potential
should be set for commercially targeted need addressed in the draft FMP. sources of bias in commercial fisheries
species, spawning species, Congress and the Magnuson-Stevens Act of the Northeast Atlantic by comparing
recreationally targeted species, do not give NMFS the ability to ignore measures of performance for vessels
endangered species, marine mammals, the reporting methodology based on with and without observers. Bias can
and other species, such as sea birds, that ‘‘limited resources.’’ Nevertheless, a arise if the vessels with observers
are needed to promote the health of the NEPA analysis could consider them. onboard consistently catch more or less
marine ecosystem; NMFS should Response: The effectiveness of any than other vessels, if trip durations
implement a hard cap on the takes of SBRM depends on its ability to estimate change, or if vessels fish in different
protected species similar to the one the type and quantity of bycatch areas. Average catches (pounds landed)
successfully implemented in the precisely and accurately enough to meet for observed and total trips compared
Western Pacific. This would remedy the the conservation and management needs favorably and the expected differences
historic failure of the pelagic longline of a fishery. The National Bycatch of the stratum specific means and
fleet to maintain up-to-date records of Report contains an in-depth standard deviations for both kept weight
turtle bycatch, allow for timely examination of the issues of precision and trip duration was near zero (Rago et
corrective action to reinitiate under the and accuracy in estimating bycatch and al., 2005).
ESA, and help the fleet stay within take how precision relates to sampling and to The report cited by this commenter
levels intended to protect against the assessments. The precision of an suggests that relatively high percentages
jeopardy to the species. Such a system estimate is often expressed in terms of of observer coverage are necessary to
would require real time observer the coefficient of variation (CV) defined adequately address potential bias in
reporting and a ‘‘yellow light’’ system to as the standard error of the estimator bycatch estimates from observer
warn fishermen when takes are divided by the estimate. The lower the programs. However, the examples cited
approaching the limit. CV, the more precise the estimate is in that report as successful in reducing
Response: Additional measures considered to be. A precise estimate is bias through high observer coverage
designed to reduce bycatch could be not necessarily an accurate estimate. levels are fisheries comprised of
examined in the future, possibly on a relatively few vessels compared to many
The National Working Group on
sector by sector basis as suggested by other fisheries, including the Atlantic
Bycatch recommended that at-sea
the commenter. However, a hard cap HMS fishery. Their examples are not
sampling designs should be formulated
system may not be appropriate or representative of the issues facing most
feasible in every sector due to logistical to achieve precision goals for the least observer programs and fishery
constraints such as placing observers on amount of observation effort, while also managers, who must work with limited
every recreational and commercial striving to increase accuracy. This can resources to cover large and diverse
vessel, limited resources, and other be accomplished through random fisheries. The commenter appears to
management measures that are already sample selection, developing suggest that simply increasing observer
in place for the fishery such as appropriate sampling strata and coverage ensures accuracy of the
mandatory circle hook use for the PLL sampling allocation procedures, and by estimates. However, bias due to
fishery. There are also international implementing appropriate tests for bias. unrepresentative sampling may not be
concerns related to rebuilding plans and Sampling programs should be driven by reduced by increasing sample size
the ATCA, fishing effort and mortality the precision and accuracy required by through increased observer coverage
rates, and bycatch that would need to be managers to address management needs due to logistical constraints, such as if
considered prior to establishing hard for estimating management quantities certain fishermen refuse to take
caps. A hard cap on the number of such as allowable catches through a observers, or if certain classes of vessels
protected species interactions (e.g., sea stock assessment, for evaluating bycatch cannot accommodate observers.
turtles) in all HMS fisheries already relative to a management standard such Increasing sample size through
exists through the incidental take as allowable take, and for developing increased observer coverage may only
statement. Each fishery is operating mitigation mechanisms. The result in a larger, but still biased, sample
under an incidental take statement that recommended precision goals for due to non-representative sampling.
once reached can close that fishery and/ estimates of bycatch are defined in Observer programs strive to achieve
or result in a re-initiation of terms of the coefficient of variation (CV) samples that are representative of both
consultation under Section 7 of the of each estimate. For marine mammals fishing effort and catches.
ESA. and other protected species, including Representative samples are critical not
Comment 44: NMFS has a study that seabirds and sea turtles, the only for obtaining accurate (i.e.,
indicates a default standardized bycatch recommended precision goal is a 20–30 unbiased) estimates of bycatch, but also
reporting methodology (SBRM) must percent CV for estimates of interactions for collecting information about factors
include observer coverage of at least 20 for each species/stock taken by a that may be important for mitigating
percent (or 50 percent when endangered fishery. For fishery resources, excluding bycatch. Bias may be introduced at
species are at risk). Rather than protected species, caught as bycatch in several levels such as when vessels are
analyzing its needs to meet the a fishery, the recommended precision selected for coverage or when only a
conservation and management goals of goal is a 20–30 percent CV for estimates portion of the haul can be sampled due
the fishery, NMFS claims the study was of total discards (aggregated over all to weather or other concerns.
simplistic and failed to account for species) for the fishery; or if total catch NMFS has conducted analyses to
‘‘limited resources.’’ This arbitrary cannot be divided into discards and determine the level of observer coverage
failure to analyze alternatives for retained catch, then the goal is a 20–30 needed for the pelagic longline, bottom
establishing a reporting methodology percent CV for estimates of total catch longline and shark gillnet fisheries to
violates NEPA and the Magnuson- (NMFS, 2004a). The report also states produce estimates for protected resource
Stevens Act. NEPA requires NMFS to that attainment of these goals may not interactions with a CV of 0.3 (30
undertake an analysis to determine the be possible or practical in all fisheries percent) or less. The current target
level of observer coverage necessary to and should be evaluated on a case-by- levels of observer coverage are eight
provide accurate and precise data for case basis. percent of total sets for the PLL fishery,
3.9 percent of total effort for the BLL and sea turtles, the recommended Comment 50: Maryland catch card
fishery, and 33.8 percent for the shark precision goal in the National Bycatch data should be used to determine total
gillnet fishery outside of the right whale Report is a 20–30 percent CV for BFT catch instead of using LPS catch
calving season (April 1 through estimates of interactions for each data for Maryland.
November 14) and 100 percent during species/stock taken by a fishery. In June Response: NMFS has reviewed the
right whale calving season (November 2005, NMFS convened the Pelagic Maryland BFT catch card data from
15 through March 31). NMFS will Longline Take Reduction Team to assess 2002–2005 to evaluate its utility for
continue to provide observer coverage at and reduce the takes of marine management purposes. Although
these levels, subject to available mammals, specifically pilot whales and current reporting appears to be high,
resources. Risso’s dolphins, by the pelagic longline there is a measured level of non-
Comment 45: NEPA requires that the fishery. NMFS will take action based on compliance with the program. This non-
EIS analyze the cumulative effect of all the results of the Pelagic Longline Take compliance was determined by
takes on sea turtles, not just the effects Reduction Plan, as necessary. comparing directly observed BFT in the
of takes in the HMS fisheries. While the Comment 47: NMFS must implement intercept portion of the LPS with catch
pelagic longline fishery is one of the comparable bycatch and sea turtle safe card records. Non-compliance with the
most damaging fisheries to sea turtle conservation certification program on Maryland catch card program is
populations, a true determination of all HMS product imports. currently estimated to be 15 percent.
environmental impacts of this fishery Response: NMFS appreciates this NMFS will continue to work with the
cannot be made without examining the comment. As such a program would be Maryland DNR to improve compliance
effects of all U.S. fisheries cumulatively. most effective as part of an international with the catch card program so that
Response: NMFS agrees that impacts program, NMFS may evaluate the NMFS can integrate the data it generates
to sea turtles and other protected efficacy and feasibility of requiring this into the monitoring and management
resources are not limited to takes in type of certification program as part of program for BFT.
HMS fisheries. The environmental a future action.
impacts of the pelagic longline fishery viii. Permitting, Reporting, and
Comment 48: While NMFS received a Monitoring
and a description of the fishery are
number of comments on ways to better Comment 51: NMFS received a
covered in Chapters 3 and 4 of the Draft
monitor recreational landings including number of comments regarding HMS
HMS FMP. All fisheries and non-
logbook data that is tied to renewing permitting in general. These comments
fisheries impacts on the status of each
permits, catch cards, and Vessel Trip consisted of: NMFS should provided
protected resource were already
Reports (VTR), the issue was relegated updated HMS regulations to permit
analyzed as part of the environmental
baseline in the BiOp for the PLL fishery. to one paragraph in the ‘‘Issues for holders when they are issued a permit;
Because the final actions within this Future Consideration and Outlook’’ permits should be renewed on a
final rule are not outside the scope of section. The AP wants to move from calendar year basis so fishing groups
the BiOp for the PLL fishery, or the survey methods to census methods and can notify their memberships and
BiOps for other HMS fisheries, NMFS that idea is lost in this draft. NMFS thereby improve renewal compliance;
does not consider the actions should work with ACCSP to implement and, NMFS should implement a salt
detrimental to sea turtle populations. a mandatory VTR program that provides water fishing license for all fishermen in
Comment 46: The EIS provides only timely, accurate catch and effort data for order to develop a database for data
a cursory analysis of the impacts of the for-hire fleets. NMFS should state collection and observer coverage.
HMS fisheries on marine mammals. The that it supports a comparison of existing Response: NMFS agrees that the idea
current bycatch monitoring for-hire VTR catch data with LPS data of providing copies of relevant
methodology is not adequate for the for the same time periods. regulations when an HMS permit is
conservation and management needs of Response: NMFS recognizes the applied for and sent has merit.
marine mammals. Collecting the desire to improve the collection of However, due to the ever changing
information is necessary to allow NMFS recreational landings data. At the dynamics of HMS fisheries, the rules
to devise specific bycatch reduction request of NMFS, the National Academy and regulations may change throughout
measures based on the actual behavior of Science (NAS) recently reviewed both the season. Providing permit holders
of marine mammals in HMS fisheries. state and federal marine recreational with a snapshot of the rules and
NMFS should require fishermen to fishery surveys. The review committee’s regulations that exist early in the season
report in real-time where they place gear report has been published and the may lead to a false sense of security that
and where gear is lost, and to mark gear Agency is evaluating the these regulations would remain
with colors to indicate the type and recommendations. consistent for the entire season. In an
location of fishing gear. NMFS must also Comment 49: The Agency has a lack attempt to strike a balance, NMFS
prioritize the granting of scientific of attention to recreational fisheries data includes information on the Atlantic
research permits. collection resulting in negative impacts tunas and HMS permits that allow the
Response: The MMPA requires to the recreational fishery. permit holder to access the most recent
commercial fishermen to report all Response: NMFS spends considerable information. For instance, NMFS
marine mammal interactions within 48 time and money collecting data from includes a web address and toll-free
hours after the end of a fishing trip. recreational fisheries, including telephone number where permit holders
Marine mammal interactions have been recreational fisheries for HMS. NMFS can locate the most up to date
documented in the pelagic longline staff also spend considerable time and regulations. For those permits that
fishery and the shark gillnet fishery. effort monitoring data collection and authorize the user to participate in
Both fisheries are subject to observer reviewing recreational fishery data for recreational HMS fisheries, NMFS has
coverage at levels that produce HMS fisheries. The Agency is evaluating included the appropriate telephone
estimates of marine mammal the recommendations of the recent NAS numbers to report their catch. NMFS is
interactions with a CV less than 30 review of marine fishery surveys to adjusting the annual management
percent. For marine mammals and other identify where improvements may be timeframe of HMS fisheries to a
protected species, including seabirds made. calendar year, versus a wrap around
fishing year, i.e., June through May of permit. Since all tournaments awarding paramount to the HMS management
the following year. NMFS will realign points or prizes for HMS are currently program and the Agency agrees that
the HMS permitting to coincide with the required to be registered with NMFS, these programs are worth serious
calendar year. For consistency purposes and because all billfish tournaments are investments of personnel and financial
the shark and swordfish commercial currently selected for reporting, the resources. The Agency currently
permits, both vessel and dealers, will Agency is already obtaining an exact maintains a comprehensive permitting
still be issued according to birth month, count of the number of marlin landed in system for both commercial and
under the business rules of the registered tournaments. recreational fisheries, including both
Southeast Permitting Office. Comment 54: NMFS received general limited and open access regimes.
Comment 52: NMFS received a comments regarding the recreational Reporting is required of all shark and
comment stating that NMFS should reporting requirements including: Non- swordfish commercial fisheries
redesign vessel permits based on fishing compliance with recreational swordfish participants, and some commercial tuna
methods and geographic area. NMFS and billfish reporting occurs because it fishery participants, including costs and
should combine vessel permitting for takes too much time to report fish to earnings reports from selected
coastal pelagics and HMS for the charter NMFS using the telephone. NMFS commercial fisheries participants.
boats, headboats, and commercial needs to simplify the telephone Landings are monitored consistently to
handgear vessels. reporting system and increase Customer ensure that landings are within their
Response: Since the inception of the Service; to increase compliance with allotted quotas. Recreational reporting is
1999 FMP, constituents, advisory panel recreational reporting requirements, currently required for all non-
members, NMFS staff, and others have NMFS should provide a bumper sticker, tournament landings of bluefin tuna,
identified a number of issues pertaining or token reward, to those fishermen that swordfish, and billfish. Tournaments
to the permitting program. These have have reported their catch. This are also required to register and report
included, but are not limited to, further technique has been successful in other any landings of HMS. NMFS is
rationalizing some segments of the HMS fisheries. dependant on several entities for
fisheries, streamlining or simplifying Response: The recreational billfish dockside and at-sea enforcement,
the permitting process, restructuring the and swordfish telephone reporting including NMFS Office of Law
permit process to a gear-based permit system has recently been modified to Enforcement, the United States Coast
system from the current species-based provide quicker and more convenient Guard, and individual states that
permit system, and reopening some access. HMS Angling category permit maintain a Joint Enforcement
segments of the limited access system to holders (or their designees) must report Agreement with NMFS. NMFS is
allow for the issuance of additional landings of these species within 24 involved in activities to enhance,
permits. Addressing these issues in the hours of landing by calling 800–894– update, and/or modify the permitting,
future may be important to the 5528, and then pushing the numbers reporting, monitoring, and enforcement
successful long-term stewardship of ‘‘21’’ to provide information regarding systems currently in place.
HMS fisheries, and therefore NMFS may the catch. A representative from NMFS Comment 56: NMFS received
consider restructuring these elements in will later contact the permit holder (or comments pertaining to the longline
future rulemakings. designee) to verify the landing and sector of the HMS fishery. The
Comment 53: A mandatory HMS provide a confirmation number. The comments consisted of: NMFS must
tournament permit (alternative E9) initial telephone call should only take a monitor and account for all sources of
would help to provide an exact count of few minutes. Since the system has been fishing mortality, not just mortality from
the number of marlin landed in modified to provide quicker access, the the PLL fleet; and, is the VMS
tournaments. number of first-time callers has requirement meeting its intended
Response: In the Draft Consolidated increased. Additionally, NMFS is purpose and who needs to possess one?;
HMS FMP, a mandatory HMS working on implementing an Internet and, NMFS should put 100 percent
tournament permit (alternative E9) was reporting system for these species. The observer coverage on commercial
considered, but not further analyzed, Agency appreciates suggestions to vessels around Puerto Rico for a few
because improvements to tournament increase compliance with the years due to gear conflicts between PLL
registration, data collection, and mandatory recreational reporting vessels and other commercial vessels.
enforceability may be achieved with requirement and will consider these in These conflicts are attributed to PLL
considerably less burden to the public the future, if necessary. vessels operating closer to shore and
and the government by issuing a Comment 55: Until NMFS seriously thus interfering with traditional trolling
confirmation number, rather than a invests in comparable permitting, practices.
permit, to tournament operators that reporting, monitoring, and enforcement Response: NMFS accounts for
have registered their tournaments with across all HMS fisheries, commercial recreational landings in stock
NMFS. Because HMS tournaments and recreational, it will not be able to assessments and uses the best available
frequently change operators, names, and appropriately manage Atlantic HMS science regarding post-release mortality
dates, a tournament permit would be fisheries. Currently, NMFS has adequate of billfish in the recreational sector to
very burdensome to administer and data for only a couple of commercial consider impacts on billfish and other
enforce. Therefore, the regulations are fisheries. HMS taken in fisheries other than
being clarified to specify that HMS Response: NMFS realizes the commercial longlining. VMS is required
tournament registration is not importance of permitting, reporting, on all vessels fishing for HMS with
considered complete unless the operator monitoring, and enforcement in pelagic longline gear onboard, on all
has received a confirmation number maintaining viable management of directed shark bottom longline vessels
from the HMS Management Division of Atlantic HMS. There are several between 33° North and 36°30′ North
NMFS. Requiring a tournament measures included in this rulemaking from January through July, and on all
confirmation number, issued by the that address these issues. Quality stock gillnet vessels with a directed shark
HMS Management Division, will assessments, accurate quota monitoring, permit during the Right Whale Calving
achieve the same objective (i.e., fishing effort control, and complying Season from November 15 to March 31.
increased compliance) as a tournament with current HMS regulations are VMS is meeting its intended purpose by
assisting in the monitoring and statistical reporting areas in the Atlantic illegally entered into commerce. NMFS
enforcement of closed areas. It is one of than logbook or fishing effort based on acknowledges that there is some
several tools including logbooks, the number of hooks would be. NMFS uncertainty associated with marlin
observer programs, gear requirements, agrees that voluntary observer coverage landings statistics from the U.S.
quotas, and limited access permits that would be helpful in a number of Caribbean, and the Agency is working to
NMFS uses to manage HMS fisheries. different fisheries, as would electronic improve these statistics by increasing
Resources for observer programs are reporting if it were technologically enforcement of existing permitting and
limited, and having 100 percent feasible and not cost prohibitive. NMFS reporting requirements, including those
observer coverage on commercial will continue to explore these options in for tournaments.
vessels around Puerto Rico would likely the future. Comment 60: One commenter was
not be possible due to funding Comment 58: An operator’s permit confused by the 3 and 12 mile limits,
constraints. Currently, vessels are should be required for all HMS other confusing rules, and whom they
randomly selected for observer coverage fisheries. should call to complain and ask for
throughout the fishery based on having Response: The HMS Management patrols.
a permit and reporting in logbooks. Division is aware of several other Response: Most states on the Atlantic
Furthermore, observers are not trained federally managed fisheries that have Ocean, with the exception of Texas and
as enforcement personnel, and would imposed this requirement (e.g., the the west coast of Florida, have a 3 mile
not be in a position to reduce conflicts commercial and charter/headboat limit which delineates their states’
between different gear sectors in and Atlantic dolphin and wahoo fisheries waters. Individual states (or
around Puerto Rico. These types of and the commercial South Atlantic rock commonwealths) have jurisdiction over
issues are more appropriately handled shrimp fishery), however, NMFS has not fisheries management and enforcement
by enforcement personnel. proposed similar measures for HMS at in their waters. The west (Gulf of
Comment 57: NMFS received a this time. NMFS is looking at the Mexico) coast of Florida and Texas have
number of comments regarding the permitting requirements for all HMS jurisdiction out to nine miles. Puerto
deployment of observers in HMS fisheries and may be consider this Rico, a U.S. Territory, has jurisdiction
fisheries. These comments consisted of: requirement in the future, as necessary out to nine miles. The 2005 Guide for
Observer coverage on the pelagic and appropriate. Complying With the Regulations for
longline fishery must be significantly Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, Sharks, and
ix. Enforcement
increased from current levels, especially Billfish provides detailed information
in areas with high levels of sea turtle Comment 59: NMFS received several and responses to frequently asked
take (e.g., the Northeast Distant and the comments related to the lack of questions concerning HMS regulations.
Gulf of Mexico). More coverage is enforcement of HMS regulations, The contact numbers for NMFS Office of
essential to provide data on the including: the Agency needs to enforce Law Enforcement are also provided in
effectiveness of the gear and bait the HMS regulations for all people this document which can be
modifications and the rate and location fishing for HMS, there is virtually no downloaded from the HMS website or
of sea turtle capture. The 2004 BiOp fisheries enforcement in the U.S. Virgin by contacting NMFS.
required 8 percent coverage but this Islands, lack of enforcement is a big Comment 61: NMFS must do a better
increase was established by ICCAT for problem in Puerto Rico, law job in protecting and preserving our
the purpose of assessing the bycatch of enforcement should increase effort marine resources in general. Possible
tuna species and will not be effective at around places where marlin are sold strategies that NMFS should consider
assessing the bycatch of rarely illegally and there are many issues with include: discouraging overfishing by
encountered species such as sea turtles; billfish landings in Puerto Rico and increasing fees, implementing stricter
proper measurement for observer there should be continued focused regulations, and improving
coverage levels should be based on the efforts to better understand how many enforcement.
number of observed hooks out of the billfish are being landed in the Response: NMFS has implemented
number of hooks reported to have been Caribbean. numerous regulations that are intended
fished, rather than number of observed Response: NMFS Office for Law to prevent overfishing, rebuild
sets; a voluntary HMS CHB observer Enforcement (NMFS OLE) has Special overfished stocks, reduce bycatch, and
program should be tested; and, NMFS Agents stationed in Puerto Rico to limit fishing capacity in efforts to ensure
should implement electronic reporting enforce all federal fisheries laws, that viable stocks of HMS are enjoyed by
and mandatory observer coverage for all including those involving HMS. In future generations of stakeholders.
HMS fisheries. addition, the United States Coast Guard Enforcement of HMS regulations is one
Response: NMFS increased observer (USCG) conducts fisheries enforcement of several priorities shared by the NMFS
coverage in the pelagic longline fishery in all federal waters, including the OLE, USCG, and states that have a Joint
to 8 percent in 2004 in order to waters off the coast of Puerto Rico. With Enforcement Agreement with the
effectively monitor bycatch after regard to the specific concerns that the Federal government. NMFS OLE, USCG,
implementation of new gear commenter raised about billfish, NMFS and individual states are constantly
requirements. The pelagic longline has very little hard data on the extent of striving to improve enforcement of not
observer program coverage level was illegal sales of billfish in Puerto Rico, just HMS regulations, but regulations
raised to 8 percent not just to meet and as such cannot verify the veracity pertaining to all fisheries. This
ICCAT targets, but also to improve the of the commenter’s claims or assess rulemaking includes regulations aimed
precision of catch and bycatch estimates their impact. NMFS has received a at rebuilding overfished stocks of
specified in NMFS’ guidelines for number of anecdotal reports of sales of billfish, preventing overfishing of
fisheries observer coverage levels. The Atlantic marlin in Puerto Rico. The finetooth sharks, reducing post release
number of sets is the standard effort number of these anecdotal reports mortality of sea turtles and other
used by other NMFS-managed fisheries suggests that a sizable number of protected resources, simplifying
in calculating the level of observer Atlantic marlin may be illegally sold management of bluefin tuna,
coverage required. Additionally, the set and implies that more than just those authorizing additional fishing gears for
location is more easily tracked to the fish that come to the boat dead are HMS, and improving identification of
sharks by dealers, among other than 5 percent. The White Marlin Status accompanied by similarly large
measures. Increasing fees was not Review Team noted that if the United increases in the fishing mortality rate,
analyzed in this rulemaking, however, States were to stop all commercial and which rose from less than 0.3 to
NMFS has implemented a suite of other recreational fishing mortality for white approximately 4.0.
regulations, in this rulemaking and marlin, the impact on the stock Based on SCRS data, catches of U.S.
otherwise, that prevent or discourage trajectory would be minimal. The U.S. flagged vessels represent 4.5 percent of
overfishing. cannot have a meaningful impact acting catches reported to ICCAT. U.S. action
Comment 62: Possession of HMS alone. ICCAT does not give credit for alone is not sufficient to fully recover
angling permits in South Florida is still unilateral conservation measures. If the stocks of Atlantic billfish, and
an issue. Many anglers do not possess U.S. implements the selected reductions in catches, landings, and
the appropriate permit. Could the Sun alternatives measures now, we will post-release mortalities from the pelagic
Sentinel or Miami Herald be involved in greatly reduce our ability to negotiate longline and recreational fisheries, at
reporting cases where anglers are caught with other nations to further reduce both the international and domestic
for fishing without the proper permits? their impacts on these overfished stocks; levels, are essential to the recovery of
Response: NMFS agrees that it is we do not favor additional domestic the Atlantic billfish. Appropriate
important for all participants in HMS regulations on catches of marlin until domestic management measures,
fisheries to possess the appropriate after further development of a including implementation of circle hook
permit and is interested in exploring rebuilding plan by ICCAT; we would be requirements and ICCAT
options to improve outreach in all areas better off if NMFS waited until the other recommendations, as contained in this
of the Atlantic with the objective of countries reduced their commercial final rule, among others, can and should
increased compliance with HMS landing by 50 percent before we agree be implemented at this time.
permitting requirements. Advertising to the 250. We would like to see The 250 marlin landing limit was
the requirements in newspapers or other verification of the 50 percent and 66 contained in an ICCAT recommendation
media may be a viable option to percent landing reductions that other (00–13) championed by the U.S.,
improve compliance. However, countries have agreed to; United States supported by the U.S. recreational,
individuals have the primary ICCAT representatives should demand commercial, and government ICCAT
responsibility for knowing the laws the unjustified 250 marlin limit be commissioners, and adopted by ICCAT.
surrounding their participation in all remanded. Particularly, when across the Recommendation 00–13 established a
activities, including the pursuit of HMS. ocean, foreign longliners harvest these number of additional stringent
Many freshwater, estuarine, and/or species for sale, with no thought of conservation measures on other nations
marine fisheries require compliance conservation; if NMFS wants angler to improve the stock status of Atlantic
with regulations that include, but are marlin, including mandatory reductions
support of recreational limits, they need
not limited to: permitting, size and bag in landings of blue and white marlin by
to prove to recreational anglers that the
limits, and seasons. HMS fisheries are 50 percent and 67 percent, respectively,
U.S. will take a tougher stand at ICCAT;
no exception. among others. For the period 2001
ICCAT may not be enough to deal with
Comment 63: NMFS OLE needs to through 2004, the U.S. has averaged 189
global conservation concerns relating to
prioritize which violations are the most recreationally landed marlins, or
billfish; more pressure needs to be
significant and pursue these cases first. approximately 75 percent of the landing
Response: NMFS OLE, in conjunction applied on countries that are not
limit each year. In two of those four
with the NMFS Regional Administrator, complying with ICCAT
years, the U.S. was more than 100
sets regional enforcement priorities. recommendations; the U.S. should
marlin, or the equivalent of more than
These priorities are based on the threat reconsider how we participate in the 40 percent, below the U.S. landing limit,
that a certain violation or category of ICCAT process due to its effectiveness and U.S. fishermen are free to practice
violations presents to marine resources, and the inability to get other member catch and release fishing, which is the
identified trends in noncompliance, as nations to comply with dominant practice in the fishery by
well as other factors. In addition, the recommendations; and, NMFS must choice. The U.S. has championed, and
Magnuson-Stevens Act, as well as the strengthen its ability to establish will continue to champion, billfish
Agency’s own civil monetary penalty responsible fishing practices in other conservation internationally.
schedule, provides that the countries and protect this global Comment 65: The biggest threat to
egregiousness of the offense and the resource. Atlantic billfish is illegal, unregulated,
violator’s history of prior violations is Response: Contrary to the assertion and unreported (IUU) fishing activities
considered, along with other factors, in that an examination of data over a by foreign longline vessels. ICCAT
determining the appropriate civil longer time series would reveal an nations must agree to eliminate these
monetary penalty. increase in billfish biomass over time, activities. No further restrictions should
an examination of Atlantic billfish be placed upon U.S. recreational billfish
x. ICCAT biomass, catch, CPUE, and fishing fishermen until the problems associated
Comment 64: NMFS received a mortality rate data back to the late 1950s with IUU fishing are addressed, and a
number of comments pertaining to shows an even more extreme decline in further reduction in bycatch by
ICCAT, the 250 recreationally caught biomass than an examination of more legitimate longline vessels is achieved.
marlin landing limit, U.S. participation recent time series. To use Atlantic blue Response: IUU fishing represents a
at ICCAT, and U.S. negotiating positions marlin as an example, biomass of threat to the health of Atlantic billfish
at ICCAT, including: ICCAT should look Atlantic blue marlin was an estimated populations, and as such, the U.S.
at a longer billfish time series so they 200 percent of MSY in the late 1950s continues to work through ICCAT to
can see the increase in biomass and declined to just 40 percent of MSY address this issue as rapidly and
overtime; the bargaining power of the by 2000. CPUE during the same period efficiently as possible. Reductions in
U.S. may be reduced at ICCAT if the full fell by more than 80 percent and total bycatch and bycatch mortality from the
quota is not being utilized; the U.S. Atlantic catches of blue marlin fell from pelagic longline and recreational
impact on Atlantic blue and white approximately 9,000 mt to just over fisheries, at both the international and
marlin is probably considerably less 2,000 mt. These dramatic declines were domestic levels, are essential to the
recovery of the Atlantic billfish. Further, would not do anything to domestic and identification techniques upon
there are appropriate domestic fishermen unless we see better entering into and prior to actively
management measures, including international compliance through participating the fishery.
implementation of circle hook ICCAT. Why is NMFS in such a hurry 3. In § 635.8(a)(1), the January 1, 2007,
requirements and ICCAT to put more regulations on U.S. deadline for owners and operators of
recommendations, as per the selected fishermen? vessels that fish with pelagic and
alternatives in this final rule, among Response: Reductions in bycatch and bottom longline and gillnet gear was
others, that can and should be bycatch mortality from the pelagic changed to require the owners and
implemented while concurrently longline and recreational fisheries, at operators of such vessels to possess a
working to end IUU fishing at the both the international and domestic workshop certificate prior to renewing
international level. levels, are essential to the recovery of their commercial shark or swordfish
Comment 66: To reduce billfish the Atlantic billfish. There are Federal limited access permits in 2007.
mortality, commenters suggested appropriate domestic management The rolling deadline distributes
consideration or adoption of a number measures, including implementation of workshop attendance throughout the
of international positions and trade circle hook requirements and ICCAT year, facilitating the implementation
restrictive actions by the U.S. including: recommendations, as contained in this and administration of these workshops.
imposition of trade penalties and tariffs final rule, among others, that can and With attendance likely to be more
on other countries that do not adhere to should be implemented while evenly distributed, owners and
ICCAT billfish recommendations; concurrently working with the operators are expected to get more
initiating action at ICCAT to stop international community to improve hands on practice with the tools and
longlining worldwide; prohibition of all management and compliance with techniques for safe handling and release
longlining in the U.S. immediately; and, existing ICCAT recommendations. The of protected species. The delayed
prohibiting the importation of any fish U.S. takes compliance issues at ICCAT deadline gives participants the
from other countries whose vessels very seriously and has led efforts at opportunity to attend the workshop
deploy longlines, do not adhere to ICCAT to improve compliance at every most convenient for them.
ICCAT quotas, and do not require circle available opportunity. The U.S. has 4. The final rule was modified to
hooks on longlines. been the driving force behind most allow NMFS to issue a certificate to any
Response: NMFS has imposed import measures at ICCAT that have resulted in person who has completed the
restrictions on swordfish below the improved compliance with management workshop. The reference to permitted
ICCAT minimum size, and may recommendations and data collection entity in § 635.8(a)(2) and permitted
consider imposing future trade requirements. entity and proxy in § 635.8(b)(2) were
restrictions on any ICCAT species, in removed. Removing the term
accordance with adopted ICCAT Changes from the Proposed Rule ‘‘permitted’’ allows individuals, who are
recommendations to impose trade (August 19, 2005; 70 FR 48804) not permitted to participate in any of
restrictions. Multilateral trade In addition to the correct of minor the HMS fisheries, to receive the
restrictions, such as ICCAT edits throughout, NMFS has made workshop certification (i.e., law
recommendations, are an effective tool several changes to the proposed rule for enforcement, port agents, anglers, etc.).
for addressing nations whose vessels management measures related to the Some permit holders are corporations or
fish in a manner that undermines the workshops, the directed billfish fishery, companies; therefore the term ‘‘person’’
effectiveness of ICCAT conservation and the BFT fishery, authorized fishing refers to individuals as well as
management measures. Pelagic longline gears, and regulatory housekeeping corporations or companies. Section 3 of
gear is the predominant gear type for issues. These changes are outlined the Magnuson-Stevens Act defines a
harvesting highly migratory species and, below. ‘‘person’’ as: ‘‘any individual (whether
with application of appropriate 1. In § 635.2, the definition of or not a citizen or national of the United
management measures, can provide for ‘‘Atlantic HMS identification workshop States), any corporation, partnership,
the sustainable harvest of fisheries certificate’’ was added to the regulatory association, or other entity (whether or
resources in many instances. As text in the proposed rule. The final rule not organized or existing under the laws
described in the response to comments changes the certificate name to of any State), and any Federal, State,
related to alternative B7, NMFS is not ‘‘Atlantic shark identification workshop local, or foreign government or any
convinced that an international or certificate’’ to better reflect the entity of any such government.’’
domestic prohibition on pelagic curriculum for these workshops. The 5. In § 635.8(b)(1), the deadline for
longline fishing is necessary at this name of the protected species workshop shark dealers to obtain an Atlantic shark
time. certificate was also modified to identification workshop certificate
Comment 67: NMFS should not protected species safe handling, release, changed from January 1, 2007, to
implement any additional management and identification workshop certificate December 31, 2007, to provide NMFS
measures on billfish until after the in order to more accurately reflect the with more time to develop the
ICCAT meeting following the next workshop objectives. workshop curriculum and materials, as
assessments of blue and white marlin; I 2. At § 635.4(l)(1), the final rule was well as certify all of the shark dealers or
support alternative E1 (no action) modified to include language regarding their proxies. The delayed deadline
because I disagree that we need to put the requirement to obtain the gives participants the opportunity to
more regulations on US fishermen. Our appropriate workshop certificate before attend the workshop most convenient
State Department needs to be listening transferring permits from one entity to for them.
to the U.S., but they do not care that another. The change was made because 6. The final rule clarifies that if a
they are putting U.S. fishermen out of the applicant must submit proof of shark dealer sends a proxy rather than
business. What the U.S. cares about is workshop certification with the personally attending an Atlantic shark
leading by example without application for a shark or swordfish identification workshop, a workshop
compliance. The U.S. still does not take limited access permit. This modification certificate for each proxy representing
international compliance at ICCAT will ensure that the owner is familiar each place of business listed under the
seriously. The U.S. should say that it with the proper safe handling, release, shark dealer permit must be submitted
with the shark dealer permit renewal stock assessments for Atlantic white 16. In the final rule, text at
application pursuant to § 635.8(b)(5) marlin, and upcoming international § 635.27(d)(3) was added to clarify the
and (c)(4). Copies of each proxy’s negotiations on the current ICCAT variables that will be considered when
workshop certificate is proof that an rebuilding plan. the Agency is making a determination of
individual from each place of business, 10. In the final rule at § 635.20(d)(4) whether or not to implement an in-
authorized to receive, purchase, trade, and § 635.27(d)(3), the minimum delay season shift to catch and release only
or barter for Atlantic shark under the in effective date for in-season minimum fishing for Atlantic blue and white
dealer’s permit, has attended an Atlantic size increases and/or an in-season shift marlin.
shark identification workshop and is to catch and release only fishing for 17. In the final rule, text at
certified in the techniques for Atlantic blue and white marlin was § 635.71(c)(8) was amended to clearly
identifying sharks to the species level in modified from 5 days to 14 calendar- articulate when it is illegal to take,
whole and log form. days based on public comment asking retain, or possess Atlantic blue or white
7. In § 635.8(c)(1), NMFS requires for additional time and reconsideration marlin.
workshop certificates to be renewed of the estimated time necessary to 18. The proposed alternative in the
three years from the expiration date collect and analyze landings Draft Consolidated HMS FMP regarding
printed on the certificate, rather than information and project the date at the retention of the North/South
prior to the date of issuance as which regulatory action may become Angling category dividing line was
proposed. The certificate will be used as necessary. changed in the Final Consolidated HMS
the individual’s proof of attending a 11. In the final rule, an effective date FMP. As a result, the regulatory text
workshop and obtaining certification; of January 1, 2007, was added to contained in § 635.27(a)(2) has been
therefore the expiration date printed on § 635.21(e)(2)(iii) to clarify when billfish modified to maintain the North/South
the certificate will facilitate monitoring tournament anglers would be subject to Angling category dividing line located
and compliance as the deadline for circle hook requirements. at 39°18′ N. latitude (Great Egg Inlet,
permit renewal will coincide with the NJ). This dividing line is intended to
12. Text was added to § 635.21
workshop certification renewal. provide a more equitable geographic
(e)(2)(iii) and § 635.71 (c)(7) to clarify
Individuals, who are grandfathered into and temporal distribution of
which tournament anglers would be
the workshop requirements, will also be recreational fishing opportunities by
subject to circle hook requirements.
held to the same three year renewal separating each BFT size-class subquota
This change was made to better inform
requirement as those attending a into two geographical regions, the
the public and facilitate enforcement.
workshop for the first time in 2007. northern area (allocated 47.2 percent of
8. The final rule at § 635.8(c)(7) 13. In the final rule at § 635.27(d)(1), the size-class subquotas) and the
includes a new requirement for anyone reasons and mechanisms for potential southern area (52.8 percent of the size-
required to attend the protected species adjustment of the annual U.S. Atlantic class subquotas). This management tool
safe handling, release, and identification marlin landings limit were identified to was originally intended to ensure
workshop or the Atlantic shark provide the public a clearer reasonable recreational fishing
identification workshop. The understanding of circumstances and opportunities in all geographic areas
requirement calls for mandatory processes under and by which the without risking overharvest of the
workshop attendees to show a copy of annual U.S. marlin landings limit may Angling category quota. While this line
their HMS permit as well as proof of be altered. allows NMFS to allocate different
identification. This additional 14. In the final rule § 635.27(d)(1) and retention limits based on the migratory
requirement ensures that the permit (2) were amended to clarify that NMFS pattern of BFT, the effectiveness of this
holder and the individual attending the will not produce or publish annual management tool depends on NMFS
workshop are the same person. In the marlin landings limit specifications at gathering recreational BFT landings
case where the permit holder is a the start of each season. The final rule information in a timely fashion to
company, corporation, partnership, or clarifies that NMFS will only produce support real-time management
some other type of entity, the individual and publish annual marlin landing limit decisions.
attending on behalf of the permit holder specifications when carryover of 19. A typographical error in
must show proof that the permit holder underharvest or overharvest, or a § 635.27(a)(7)(ii) is also corrected in this
acknowledges the individual as their subsequent ICCAT recommendation, final action. The total amount of school
agent, and they must show a copy of the alters the U.S. Atlantic marlin landings BFT that is held in reserve for inseason
HMS permit. For proxies attending on limit from 250 fish. This change was or annual adjustments and fishery-
behalf of a shark dealer permit holder, made to streamline the management independent research is equal to 18.5
the proxy must have documentation process, similar to the process used for percent of the total school BFT quota for
from the dealer acknowledging that the other HMS. the Angling category. In the proposed
proxy is attending on behalf of the 15. In the final rule at § 635.27(d)(2), rule, the metric ton equivalent to this
Atlantic shark dealer permit holder. variables identified as those which calculation was published as 36.6 mt,
9. In the final rule, at § § 635.5(c)(2); would be considered when determining this was in error and is corrected to the
635.20(d)(2) and (d)(4); 635.21(e)(i); potential adjustments to the annual actual amount of 22.0 mt.
635.22(b); 635.30(b); and, 635.71(c)(9) landing limit of 250 recreationally 20. In the List of Fisheries (LOF) at
text prohibiting the take, retention, and caught Atlantic marlin were modified. § 600.725(v), under IX, Secretary of
possession of Atlantic white marlin The proposed rule mistakenly contained Commerce (H), has been modified to
from January 1, 2007, through December variables appropriate for consideration combine the Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish,
31, 2011, inclusive, was deleted. of in-season adjustments to marlin and Shark FMP with the Atlantic
Elimination of this text reflects the minimum sizes and/or a shift to catch Billfish FMP, consistent with the
Agency’s decision not to adopt this and release only fishing for Atlantic consolidation of those FMPs in this final
alternative, at this time, based on public marlin, but not for adjustment of the rule. The LOF was also modified to
comment in opposition to the proposal, annual 250 Atlantic marlin landing limit the use of speargun fishing gear to
limited ecological gains relative to limit. The inappropriate variables were BAYS tunas only. The modification to
potential economic costs, the upcoming removed. exclude BFT from the allowed list of
target species for this new gear type was unlawful for any person or vessel inclusion of this definition rectifies
made because of the declining subject to the jurisdiction of the United potential problems in enforcing the float
performance of the existing BFT fishery, States to: fish for any HMS, other than restriction in the proposed rule.
recent quota limited situations within Atlantic BAYS tunas, with speargun 28. In § 635.6(c)(1) and (2), buoy gear
the recreational angling sector, and fishing gear; sell, purchase, barter for, or has been added to the list of gears for
ongoing concerns over the status of the trade for an Atlantic BAYS tuna which there are specific gear marking
stock. The LOF was further modified to harvested with speargun fishing gear; requirements.
clarify, consistent with existing fire or discharge speargun gear without 29. In § 635.21(e)(4)(iii), the gear
regulations at § 635.21(e)(4)(iv), the being physically in the water; use operation and deployment restrictions
authorized gears for the recreational speargun gear to harvest a BAYS tuna for buoy gear have been modified to
swordfish fishery. Finally, in the final restricted by fishing lines or other require that vessels utilizing buoy gear
rule, green-stick was removed from the means; or, use speargun gear to fish for may not possess or deploy more than 35
tuna handgear fishery in the LOF, as BAYS tunas from a vessel that does not floatation devices and to clarify the
further described in item 25 below. possess a valid HMS Angling or Charter/ original intent of the proposed rule. The
21. In § 635.21(e)(1)(i) and (ii), the Headboat permit. proposed rule stated that vessels may
authorized gear section for Atlantic 25. Based on public comments, as not possess or deploy more than 35
tunas Angling and Charter/Headboat described in the Response to Comments individual buoys per vessel. This
categories, the use of speargun fishing section of the preamble, NMFS has modification was made to allow for
gear for Atlantic tunas has been determined to clarify the currently additional flexibility in constructing
restricted to the recreational BAYS tuna allowed use of the green-stick gear and deploying this gear type, as
fishery only. The proposed rule was rather than proceed with authorization discussed in item 26 above. The
modified to exclude BFT from the list of and definition of the gear-type in a additional restrictions added to clarify
allowable tuna species due to declining manner that may further add to the intent of the rule include: buoy gear
performance of the existing BFT fishery, confusion and have unintended must be constructed and deployed so
recent quota limited situations within negative consequences to fishery that the hooks and/or gangions are
the recreational angling sector, and resources and participants. Accordingly,
attached to the vertical portion of the
ongoing concerns over the status of the all references to green-stick gear that
mainline; floatation devices may be
stock. were contained in the proposed rule
22. In § 635.21(f), the gear operation attached to one, but not both ends of the
have been removed. These references
and deployment restrictions section for mainline, and no hooks or gangions may
were contained in the LOF at
speargun fishing gear, the proposed rule be attached to any floatation device or
§ 600.725(v), and in the HMS
has been amended to include, consistent horizontal portion of the mainline; if
regulations at § 635.2, § 635.21(e)(1),
with the changes in item 21 above, a more than one floatation device is
§ 635.21(e)(1)(ii) and (iii), and
restriction which limits the use of attached to a buoy gear, no hook or
§ 635.31(a)(1).
speargun fishing gear to the recreational 26. In § 635.2, the definition of buoy gangion may be attached to the mainline
BAYS tuna fishery only. Additionally, gear has been modified. In the proposed between them; individual buoy gears
the regulatory text has been clarified to rule, this definition contained language may not be linked, clipped, or
state that persons authorized to fish for restricting the gear operation and connected together in any way; and, if
Atlantic BAYS tunas with speargun gear deployment. This regulatory text has a gear monitoring device is positively
must be physically in the water when been removed from the definition of buoyant and rigged to be attached to a
the speargun is fired or discharged, buoy gear and has been moved to the fishing gear, it is included in the 35
given that the speargun does not use an gear operation and deployment floatation device vessel limit and must
explosive device. restrictions at § 635.21(e)(4)(iii). be marked appropriately.
23. In the final rule, at § 635.31(a)(1), Additionally, NMFS has altered the 30. To reinforce buoy gear operation
the ability to sell tunas harvested with definition of buoy gear in the final rule and deployment restrictions at
speargun gear has been modified. The in response to public comment. The § 635.21(e)(4)(iii), prohibitions have
proposed rule would have allowed the proposed rule limited fishermen been added at § 635.71(e). Under this
sale of speared BAYS tunas from HMS utilizing buoy gear to deploying only section, it is unlawful for any person or
Charter/Headboat category vessels, one buoy per individual buoy gear. The vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the
subject to applicable limits, and would final rule allows the use of more than U.S. to: fish for, catch, possess, retain,
not have allowed the sale of large one floatation device per gear and or land an Atlantic swordfish using, or
medium or giant BFT taken with allows fishermen to configure the gear captured on, buoy gear as defined at
speargun fishing gear at § 635.31(a)(1). differently depending on vessel and § 635.2, unless the vessel owner has
In the final rule, § 635.31(a)(1) has been crew capabilities, or weather and sea been issued a swordfish directed LAP or
modified to state specifically that conditions. In the final rule, buoy gear a swordfish handgear LAP in
persons may not sell or purchase is defined as a fishing gear consisting of accordance with § 635.4(f); as the owner
Atlantic tunas, BAYS or BFT, harvested one or more floatation devices of a vessel permitted, or required to be
with speargun fishing gear. This supporting a single mainline to which permitted, in the swordfish directed or
modification clarifies that authorizing no more than two hooks or gangions are a swordfish handgear LAP category, and
this gear type for recreational speargun attached. utilizing buoy gear, to possess or deploy
fishermen allows them the opportunity 27. In § 635.2, a definition of more than 35 individual floatation
to use speargun fishing gear to target ‘‘floatation device’’ has been added to devices, to deploy more than 35
BAYS tunas only, recreationally. clarify the intent of the buoy gear individual buoy gears per vessel, or to
24. To reinforce speargun fishing gear definition at § 635.2 and the gear deploy buoy gear without affixed
operation and deployment restrictions operation and deployment restrictions monitoring equipment, as specified at
at § 635.21(f) and restrictions on sale at § 635.21(e)(4)(iii). Further, this § 635.21(e)(4)(iii); fail to mark each buoy
and purchase at § 635.31(a)(1), definition is responsive to public gear as required at § 635.6(c); possess
additional prohibitions have been added comment and better reflects the any HMS, other than Atlantic swordfish,
at § 635.71(b). Under this section, it is operational reality of this fishery. The harvested with buoy gear; or, fail to
construct, deploy, or retrieve buoy gear 35. The proposed rule at into, or deducted from, the subsequent
as specified at § 635.21(e)(4)(iii). § 635.21(c)(1)(i) and (d)(4)(i) stated that fishing year’s set-aside allocation.
31. In addition to the restrictions set the percent of pelagic species that 38. NMFS has modified the proposed
forth in the proposed rule at § 635.21(b), bottom longline vessels could possess in list of demersal ‘‘indicator’’ species in
the regulatory text has been modified to PLL closed areas was to be measured Table 3 of Appendix A to part 635 by
state that no person may use secondary relative to the weight of demersal removing silky sharks and three species
gears to capture, or attempt to capture, species possessed or landed, and that of hammerhead sharks from the final
free-swimming or undersized HMS. the percent of demersal species that list, because these species could
This language was modified to pelagic longline vessels could possess in potentially be caught on both pelagic
differentiate between primary and BLL closed areas was to be measured and bottom longlines. Also, three
secondary gears. relative to the weight of pelagic species species of tilefish are added to the final
32. In § 635.71(a), the general possessed or landed, respectively. In the list of demersal ‘‘indicator’’ species,
prohibitions section, a prohibition has final rule, at § 635.21(c)(1) and (d)(4), because these species are indicative of
been added to reinforce the general gear this procedure is corrected and clarified bottom longline fishing activity and
operation and deployment restrictions to indicate that the percent of either based upon public comment.
at § 635.21(b). The prohibition in the type of species is to be measured 39. In the final rule, NMFS modified
final rule states that, it is unlawful for relative to the total weight of all the name of the FMP in § 635.34(b) to
any person or vessel subject to the indicator species that are listed in reflect the consolidation of the two
jurisdiction of the U.S. to utilize Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix A to part previous FMPs into one.
secondary gears to capture, or attempt to 635. Agency Decision on the Blue Ocean
capture, any undersized or free- 36. The proposed rule at Institute’s Petition for Rulemaking to
swimming HMS, or fail to release a § 635.21(c)(1)(ii) and (d)(4)(ii) would Close an Area of the Gulf of Mexico
captured HMS as specified at have established an upper and lower from April through June
§ 635.21(a). limit on the number of commercial One of the Gulf of Mexico time/area
33. In the proposed rule, NMFS added fishing floats that bottom and pelagic closure alternatives that NMFS
regulatory text at § 635.5(a)(1) specifying longline vessels, respectively, could considered was suggested in a petition
that the annual ‘‘cost-earnings’’ possess or deploy if fishing in an HMS for rulemaking from Blue Ocean
reporting form from selected vessels was closed area. Based upon public Institute et al. This alternative was
to be submitted by January 31 of the comment indicating that this measure suggested as a means of protecting
following year. In the final rule, the could severely reduce the operational western Atlantic BFT that return to the
regulatory text has been clarified and flexibility of longline vessels, and Gulf of Mexico to spawn. This
changed to specify that the ‘‘Annual consultations with NMFS Office of Law alternative would prohibit the use of
Expenditures’’ reporting form from Enforcement indicating that the pelagic longline gear in HMS fisheries
selected vessels is required to be proposed regulation was impractical, in a putative BFT spawning area from
submitted by the date specified on the NMFS has decided to remove this April through June (101,670 nm2; 3
form. The date currently specified on measure from the final regulations. months). Assuming no redistribution of
the form is January 31 of the following 37. In the Draft Consolidated HMS effort (i.e., all affected vessels no longer
year, but this modification will allow FMP, NMFS preferred alternative I10(b), fish with pelagic longline), the logbook
NMFS to change the date on the form which would have amended the data indicated that this alternative
through a revision to the Paperwork regulatory text to clarify that carry-over would potentially reduce bycatch of all
Reduction Act submission without provisions would apply to the NED set- of the species being considered from a
conducting a separate rulemaking to aside. However, after subsequent minimum of 0.8 percent for pelagic
change the regulatory text. NMFS is analysis of the ICCAT recommendation sharks to a maximum 21.5 percent for
considering, based on public comment, and in response to comments seeking BFT. However, assuming that effort is
modifying the date to April 15 of the clarification, the Agency determined redistributed to open areas (i.e., all
following year to coincide with Federal that the ICCAT recommendation affected vessels fish with pelagic
tax return submission deadlines. NMFS provides the flexibility to avoid any longline in open areas), bycatch was
has clarified the title of the form to more potential negative environmental predicted to increase for all species
accurately reflect its actual title. impacts associated with this alternative. except leatherback and other sea turtles.
34. In the proposed rule, the Therefore, alternative I10(c) is the final Even BFT discards, which showed a
regulatory text at § 635.5(c)(2) would be alternative in the Final Consolidated fairly dramatic decline without
modified to indicate that vessel owners, HMS FMP. Under this alternative, redistribution of effort, were predicted
rather than anglers, are required to NMFS will conduct additional to increase by 9.8 percent with
report all non-tournament recreational discussions at ICCAT regarding the redistribution of effort. The apparent
landings of Atlantic billfish and North long-term implications of allowing increase in predicted BFT discards with
Atlantic swordfish to NMFS. Based unused BFT quota from the previous redistribution of effort was likely due to
upon public comment indicating that year to be added to the subsequent the fact that BFT are caught in months
some vessel owners may be absent year’s allocation. Depending upon the other than April through June in the
while having another captain operate results of these discussions, the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the high
the vessel, the regulation in the final regulations and operational procedures number of BFT discards in other areas.
rule has been modified to indicate that may need to be further amended in the This was reflected in some of the other
vessel owners, or their designee, are future. In the interim, NMFS will alternatives analyzed as described in the
required to report non-tournament maintain the proposed regulatory text at HMS FMP. When effort was
recreational landings of these species to § 635.27(a)(3) and § 635.23(f)(3), as it redistributed to only the open areas of
NMFS. The vessel owner would still be meets the objectives being addressed the Gulf of Mexico and in an area in the
responsible for reporting, but the regarding this issue, but will amend the Atlantic where many Gulf of Mexico
owner’s designee could fulfill the practice of allowing under/overharvest vessels have reported fishing, there was
requirement. of this set-aside allocation to be rolled a predicted decrease in bycatch of white
marlin, leatherback and other sea regard to sea turtle interactions and Classification
turtles, and pelagic shark discards, BFT bycatch of other non-target HMS, NMFS This final rule is published under the
discards, yellowfin tuna discards, and chooses, at this time, not to modify the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
BAYS tuna discards. However, the current time/area closures. NMFS 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. NMFS has
analysis also predicted an increase in intends to reconsider modifications to determined that the final rule and
bycatch of blue marlin, sailfish, existing closures once further analyses related Final Consolidated HMS FMP
spearfish, and large coastal sharks. of circle hook data and the results of the are consistent with the national
This alternative based on the petition stock assessments for blue marlin, white standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
would potentially impact a total of 75 marlin, north and south swordfish, and other provisions of the Act, and other
vessels that fished in the area from 2001 eastern and western BFT become applicable laws.
- 2003. Without redistribution of effort, available. Pending the results of the NMFS prepared an FEIS for the Final
this alternative would potentially result marlin, swordfish, and BFT stock Consolidated HMS FMP. The FEIS was
in a 13.4 percent decrease in fishing assessments, the criteria could allow for filed with the EPA on July 7, 2006. A
effort, and reductions in landings additional closures or modifications of notice of availability was published on
ranging from a minimum of 9.9 percent existing closures to be considered for all
for incidentally-caught BFT (kept) to a July 14, 2006 (71 FR 40096). In
HMS fisheries, including those to approving this final rule and the Final
maximum 27.0 percent for bigeye tuna. reduce the incidental takes of BFT.
The total loss in revenue for this Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS issued
Although NMFS is not selecting this a ROD identifying the selected
alternative, assuming no redistribution alternative based on the petition at this
of effort, would be approximately alternatives. A copy of the ROD is
time, NMFS will pursue alternatives to available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
$3,136,229 annually, or $49,003 per
reduce bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico, This final rule has been determined to
vessel annually. With redistribution of
especially for spawning BFT. NMFS has be not significant for purposes of
fishing effort, the alternative was
currently adopted all of the ICCAT Executive Order 12866.
predicted to result in a decrease in
recommendations regarding BFT, a This final rule contains no new
bluefin and yellowfin tuna landings of
rebuilding plan is in place domestically collection-of-information requirements
18.3 and 11.0 percent, respectively, for
for this species, and NMFS has subject to review and approval by OMB
estimated losses of approximately
implemented measures to rebuild this under the PRA.
$166,040 and $1,382,042 annually.
overfished stock. NMFS is currently An informal consultation under the
However, overall there could have been
a net gain in revenues for this assessing different protections for ESA was concluded for the Final
alternative with redistribution of effort different ages of BFT and how such Consolidated HMS FMP on January 25,
of approximately $1,651,023 annually, protection will affect the BFT stock as 2006. As a result of the informal
or $25,797 per vessel annually. The a whole. For instance, how will consultation, the Regional
actual ecological and economic impacts protecting spawning BFT in the Gulf of Administrator determined that fishing
of the alternative would likely be in Mexico help rebuild the stock if it activities conducted under this rule are
between no redistribution of effort and results in increased discards of juvenile not likely to affect adversely endangered
the full redistribution of effort model. and sub-adult BFT along the U.S. east or threatened species or critical habitat.
As described in the Final HMS FMP and coast? NMFS needs more information to As described in the Final Consolidated
in the response to Comment 26 of the further understand how to manage this HMS FMP, the final management
time/area section, NMFS also evaluated species given its complex migratory measures are not expected to cause
additional scenarios between these base patterns, life history, and age structure. significant changes in fishing practices,
scenarios when some movement is NMFS is also considering developing distribution of fishing, or fishing effort.
expected into a particular area (i.e., incentives that would dissuade As such, reinitiation of consultation
instead of being uniformly distributed to fishermen from keeping incidentally with respect to the previously
all open areas), depending on the spatial caught BFT, particularly spawning BFT, concluded HMS biological opinions is
and temporal duration of the closure. in the Gulf of Mexico. This may involve not required under 50 CFR 402.16.
For this particular alternative for the research on how changes in fishing In addition to the impacts of the final
petition, in addition to the base practices may help reduce bycatch of alternatives in this document, NMFS
scenarios, NMFS also evaluated the non-target species as well as the continues to monitor impacts to
movement of fishing effort to other open tracking of discards (dead and alive) by protected species from the ongoing
areas in the Gulf of Mexico and to a all gear types. In addition, NMFS is also operation of HMS fisheries through
specific area in the Atlantic Ocean. Due considering the effects of sea surface various logbook and observer programs.
to the potential negative ecological temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico and NMFS monitors observed interactions
impacts, negative economic impacts, its association with congregations of with marine mammals and sea turtles in
and the increase in bycatch and discards BFT and putative BFT spawning the pelagic longline fishery on a
based on the different redistribution of grounds in the Gulf of Mexico (Block, quarterly basis and reviews the data in
effort scenarios, NMFS is not selecting pers. comm.). NMFS intends to conjunction with extrapolated annual
this alternative at this time. investigate the variability associated take estimates for appropriate action, if
In addition to the variability of with sea surface temperatures as well as any, as necessary. Should additional
impacts across species, all of the the temporal and spatial consistency of management measures be deemed
analyses, including those for the the association with these temperature necessary to reduce bycatch or bycatch
petition for rulemaking, were conducted regimes. By better understanding what mortality of protected species in the
using J-hook data. New circle hook influences the distribution and timing of pelagic longline or other HMS fisheries,
management measures were put into BFT in the Gulf of Mexico, NMFS can NMFS would take appropriate action in
place in 2004, and NMFS is still work on developing tailored a separate rulemaking.
assessing the effects of circle hooks on management measures over space and The AA has determined that this rule
bycatch rates for HMS. Until NMFS can time to maximize ecological benefits is consistent to the maximum extent
better evaluate the effects of circle hooks while minimizing economic impacts, to practicable with the enforceable policies
on bycatch reduction, especially with the extent practicable. of the coastal states in the Atlantic, Gulf
of Mexico, and Caribbean that have further discussion of the economic opposed to the protected species
federally approved coastal zone impacts of all the alternatives workshops. Some commenters were
management programs under the considered. Copies are available (see concerned about potential lost revenue
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). ADDRESSES). on longline trips if bycatch were to be
In August 2005, NMFS provided all handled correctly, and recommended
Statement of the Need for and
states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin not limiting these workshops to longline
Objectives of the Final Rule
Islands copies of the proposed rule and fishermen. Some comments supported
Draft Consolidated HMS FMP. Under 15 The need for and objective of the final extending the workshop requirements to
CFR 930.41, states have 60 days to rule are fully described in the preamble include all HMS fishermen, as well as
respond after receipt of the consistency of the proposed rule (70 FR 48804, expanding the release techniques to
determination and supporting materials. August 19, 2005) and in the Final include additional species. NMFS
States can request an extension of 15 Consolidated HMS FMP and are not received many comments suggesting
days. If a response is not received repeated here (5 U.S.C. 604(a)(1)). In that various combinations of owners,
within those time limits, NMFS can summary, the selected actions in this operators, and crew members be
presume concurrence (15 CFR final rule will: establish mandatory required to participate in the
930.41(a)). Eleven states replied, within workshops for commercial fishermen workshops. Commenters noted that if
the 60-day response period, that the and shark dealers; implement the crew members are not required to
proposed regulations were consistent, to complementary time/area closures in attend, then the operators should be
the extent practicable, with the the Gulf of Mexico (GOM); implement responsible for training the crew.
enforceable policies of their coastal zone criteria for adding new or modifying Several commenters opposed requiring
management programs. The State of existing time/area closures; address the crew to be certified because of their
Georgia replied on March 1, 2006, that rebuilding and overfishing of northern transient nature and the fact that some
the proposed rule was not consistent albacore tuna and finetooth sharks; crew members are not U.S. citizens and
with the enforceable policies of implement recreational management may not be available to attend
Georgia’s coastal zone management measures for Atlantic billfish; modify workshops. A few commenters
program. NMFS notified the State of bluefin tuna (BFT) General Category supported grandfathering in the
Georgia that because their response was subperiod quotas and simplify the industry certified individuals, so that
after the 60-day response period, NMFS management process of BFT; change the they do not need to attend the first
presumed concurrence after the end of fishing year for tunas, swordfish, and round of mandatory workshops (they
the CZMA review period and would billfish to a calendar year; authorize would still need to be recertified).
consider their comment as part of the speargun fishing gear in the recreational This rule will require that vessel
public comments received on the fishery for bigeye, albacore, yellowfin, owners and operators attend the
proposed rule and Draft Consolidated and skipjack (BAYS) tunas; authorize workshops. This requirement for vessel
HMS FMP. NMFS has presumed buoy gear in the commercial swordfish owners and operators balances the
concurrence with the states that did not handgear fishery; clarify the allowance ecological need to ensure that fishermen
respond. NMFS will continue to work of secondary gears (also known as on the vessel can use the handling and
with the states to ensure consistency cockpit gears); and clarify existing release gear appropriately and the
between state and Federal regulations. regulations. economic costs to the fishermen to
attend the workshops. While the final
A Summary of the Final Regulatory A Summary of the Significant Issues
rule will not require crew members to
Flexibility Analysis Raised by the Public Comments in attend the workshops, it is likely that
As required under the Regulatory Response to the IRFA operators and owners would
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., A FRFA is also required to include a disseminate this information to the crew
NMFS prepared an Initial Regulatory summary of the significant issues raised in a cost effective manner. NMFS
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) for the Draft by the public comments in response to encourages all workshop participants to
Consolidated HMS FMP and its the IRFA, a summary of the assessment disseminate this information to all crew
proposed rule (70 FR 48804, August 19, of the issues raised, and a statement of members involved with haul-back or
2005) and prepared an FRFA for the any changes made in the rule as a result fishing activities. This rule will also
Final Consolidated HMS FMP and this of the comments (5 U.S.C. 604(a)(2)). grandfather in the industry-certified
final rule. The FRFA examines the NMFS did not receive any comments individuals. While NMFS realizes that
economic impacts of the management specific to the IRFA but did receive many vessel owners may not operate or
alternatives on small entities in order to many comments on the Draft be present on the vessels during fishing
determine ways to minimize economic Consolidated HMS FMP as a whole and trips, certifying vessel owners ensures
impacts. The FRFA incorporates the the general economic impacts of the that they are aware of the certification
IRFA, a summary of the significant proposed regulations. All the comments requirements and protocols. The owners
issues raised by the public comments in received and NMFS’ responses to those are, then, accountable for preventing
response to the IRFA, NMFS responses comments are summarized above under their vessel from engaging in fishing
to those comments, and a summary of Response to Comments. Additionally, activities without a certified operator on
the analyses completed to support the NMFS describes the changes to the board. NMFS did not change the
action. A summary of the information proposed rule (some of these changes proposed rule as a result of these
presented in the FRFA follows. Where were a result of public comment) above, comments, but did clarify portions of
applicable, within each section of the under Changes from the Proposed Rule. the regulatory text to ensure the
FRFA, the issues are addressed in the The paragraphs below summarize some implementation is clear.
same order they were in the FEIS and of the specific economic concerns that NMFS received several comments in
in the Response to Comment section of were raised and NMFS’ response. support of time periods for renewal of
this final rule, starting with Workshops certification that were different than the
and ending with Regulatory A. Workshops proposed alternative. NMFS is
Housekeeping Measures. The Final NMFS received many public maintaining the original preferred
Consolidated HMS FMP provides comments both in support of and alternative of recertification generally
every three years in order to balance the B. Time/Area Closures alternatives indicating support and
ecological benefits of maintaining NMFS also received comments on the opposition to Alternatives D2–D4, and
familiarity with the protocols and time/area closure alternatives. A additional comments, including, but not
species identification, and the economic number of commenters expressed limited to: comments on gillnet fisheries
impacts of workshop attendance due to concern over the effort redistribution in general, the use of VMS, the results
travel costs and lost fishing of the 2002 SCS stock assessment,
model used to analyze these
opportunities. reporting of HMS by dealers,
alternatives. These commenters felt that
identification of finetooth sharks, and
NMFS received comments regarding pelagic longline vessels were not mobile
the accuracy of data attained from
the need for proxies for dealers enough to redistribute effort uniformly
MRFSS. All of these comments were
attending shark identification and that vessels in a certain area would
considered prior to selection of the final
workshops under alternative A9, the move to adjacent areas (e.g., vessels
alternative for preventing overfishing of
flexibility required in certifying newly homeported in the Gulf of Mexico
finetooth sharks. NMFS did not change
hired proxies, and the need for multiple would stay in the Gulf of Mexico and
the proposed alternative as a result of
proxies. Alternative A9 was modified to would not move into the mid-Atlantic
these comments. Additional measures
address these comments and allow for bight). NMFS received comments that may be necessary to prevent overfishing
dealer proxies. Because not all shark different approaches to effort of finetooth sharks in the future.
dealer permit holders may be onsite redistribution should be considered,
where vessels unload their catches, this particularly for closures of bluefin tuna E. Atlantic Billfish
rule will permit a local proxy to attend in spawning areas in the Gulf of Mexico. NMFS received many comments
the workshop to obtain the proper As a result, NMFS considered regarding Atlantic billfish alternatives.
training in species-specific shark redistribution of effort based on an NMFS received substantial public
identification, while allowing the analysis of the mobility of the PLL fleet comment opposing and supporting
permit holder to meet the certification and known effort displacement circle hook requirements proposed
requirements. Furthermore, since the currently taking place out of the Gulf of under draft alternatives E2 and E3. A
actual permit holders may not be Mexico. Based on this revised approach, prevalent theme of the comments
involved in fish house activities, the NMFS determined that the closures in opposing mandatory circle hook use, in
workshops would more effectively the Gulf of Mexico could increase all or portions of the HMS and billfish
decrease the reporting of unknown bycatch for some of the species being recreational fisheries, was that the
sharks if a proxy who is directly considered. Therefore, NMFS decided recreational sector has a minor impact
involved with fish house activities not to implement any new time/area on Atlantic billfish populations relative
attends and obtains the training in lieu closures, other than complementary to the commercial pelagic longline fleet.
of the permit holder. If a dealer opts to closures for Madison-Swanson and Given the relatively small size of the
send a proxy, then the dealer would be Steamboat Lumps. U.S. domestic pelagic longline fleet and
required to designate a proxy from each During the comment period, NMFS the considerable size of the recreational
place of business covered by the dealer’s also received comments regarding a fishing fleet, NMFS determined that it
permit. A proxy would be a person who ‘‘decision matrix’’ that could help to was appropriate to examine billfish
is employed by a place of business, guide the choices that NMFS would mortality from the domestic perspective
covered by a dealer’s permit, a primary have to make between different time/ in addition to working internationally
participant in identification, weighing, area closures and different species, that through ICCAT. NMFS did not change
or first receipt of fish as they are NMFS should set bycatch reduction the proposed action, alternative E3, as a
offloaded from a vessel, and involved in goals, and that the bycatch reduction result of public comment. The final
filling out dealer reports. goals of the existing closures have action will require non-offset circle
already been met and, therefore, the hooks at all billfish tournaments if
According to public comment, NMFS
Agency should reopen portions of the natural or natural/artificial baits are
should anticipate turnover in dealer
current closures. As discussed in the used.
proxies. To address this, the Agency is A second important theme in
response to Comment 20 in the Time/
allowing one-on-one training sessions comments opposing mandatory circle
Area Closures section, NMFS agrees that
that would accommodate the hook use under alternatives E2 and E3
decision matrices and bycatch reduction
replacement of a proxy whose was the need for NMFS to promulgate
goals could be useful, but does not
employment was terminated on short more detailed specifications for circle
believe that NMFS could use these
notice. These sessions would be at the hooks. NMFS is continuing to work on
concepts to appropriately balance the
expense of the permit holder. various definitions of circle hooks that
needs of the different species involved
Public comments were supportive of at this time. NMFS did not change the may lead to a more refined hook
mandatory HMS identification proposed rule as a result of these definition in the future. However,
workshops for federally permitted shark comments. NMFS finds that it is appropriate to
dealers, but also suggested that these require the use of circle hooks in
workshops be available to others, such C. Northern Albacore Tuna portions of the recreational billfish
as the recreational and commercial NMFS did not receive many fishery, at this time, to reduce post-
fishery, law enforcement, port agents, comments in regard to the alternatives release mortalities in the recreational
and state shark dealers. While these considered for northern albacore tuna. billfish fishery.
workshops would be mandatory for None of the comments received were in NMFS also received comments that
federally permitted shark dealers, NMFS regard to the economic impacts. NMFS billfish tournament operators would
would try to accommodate other did not change the preferred alternative need advance notice of impending circle
interested individuals when it is as a result of public comment. hook regulations to allow for production
feasible. At well-attended workshops, of rules, advertising, and informing
those persons for whom the workshops D. Finetooth Sharks tournament participants of potential
are mandatory would be given priority NMFS received a range of public circle hook requirements. In response,
in terms of hands-on instruction. comments regarding finetooth shark NMFS spoke to a number of tournament
operators in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico Atlantic marlin in the Commonwealth planning and scheduling of trips. The
and Caribbean to better understand of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Caribbean, preferred alternative F6 should help
various aspects of tournament until such time as this is resolved. Thus, facilitate the development of timely
operations, and determined that a NMFS is not changing the proposed schedules. NMFS did not change the
delayed date of effectiveness of no less alternative. This rule is anticipated to proposed alternative as a result of
than six months would be necessary to allow the U.S. to continue to public comment on the proposed rule.
minimize adverse impacts to successfully pursue international marlin
G. Timeframe for Annual Management
tournament operators and participants. conservation measures by fully
of HMS Fisheries
Significant outreach efforts have been implementing U.S. international
undertaken by NMFS since the release obligations and potentially provide a Preferred Alternative G2, which
of the FEIS in July 2006 to address the minor ecological impact with, at most, would change the timeframe for annual
need for advanced notice. Therefore, the minor adverse economic impacts. management of HMS fisheries, was
effective date of the requirement will be NMFS received public comment modified because the comment period
January 1, 2007. This effective date in opposed to, and in support of, the on the proposed rule was extended. The
combination with continued outreach Atlantic white marlin catch and release fishing year in 2007, rather than 2006 as
effort by NMFS will provide billfish alternative. The commenters opposed to described in the Draft Consolidated
tournament anglers additional time to the alternative expressed concerns over HMS FMP, would be compressed.
familiarize themselves and become potential adverse economic impacts to During the public comment period,
proficient in the use of circle hooks, the fishery if catch and release only several commenters expressed concern
while allowing tournament operators to fishing for Atlantic white marlin were about the effect of a calendar year
adjust tournament rules, formats, and required. The commenters supporting management cycle on the availability of
informational materials, as appropriate, the landings prohibition stated concerns quota rollover from the previous
thereby minimizing any potential over white marlin stock status, the ESA calendar year during the January portion
adverse socio-economic impacts. listing review, and maintaining of the south Atlantic fishery. Under
Additionally, given the concerns leadership at the international level. changes to the BFT management
expressed from fishermen in the mid- Based on these comments as well as a program included in this rule, the
Atlantic region since the release of the number of other factors, including but January subperiod would receive a
FEIS regarding this requirement, NMFS not limited to, the impending receipt of quota of 5.3 percent of the annual
intends to work cooperatively with a new stock assessment for Atlantic ICCAT allocation.
tournaments and anglers to research white marlin and upcoming H. Authorized Fishing Gears
other bait and/or hook and bait international negotiations on Atlantic
marlin, NMFS changed its preferred With regard to authorized gears, there
combinations that would achieve the were public comments in support of
same ecological benefits. alternative and chose not to prohibit
landings of Atlantic white marlin in this preferred alternative H2 to authorize
NMFS also received public comments final rule. The implementation of circle speargun fishing as a permissible gear
regarding the perceived limited hook requirements (alternative E3) is an type for recreational Altantic BAYS
ecological impact of the 250 marlin important first step in reducing tuna. NMFS received comments
landings limit. These comments could mortality in the directed billfish fishery. indicating that recreational
be categorized into two opposing views NMFS will consider, as necessary and spearfishermen place a high value on
that suggest two different courses of appropriate, catch and release only spearfishing for tunas, and are currently
action. Some commenters suggested that fishing options for Atlantic white marlin traveling outside of the United States for
the limited ecological impact was not as well as other billfish conservation the opportunity to participate in tunas
worth any potential adverse economic measures in future rulemakings. speargun fisheries. The final rule will
impact, even a very limited one, while allow recreational BAYS fishing. This is
other commenters suggested that the F. BFT Quota Management a modification from the proposed rule
U.S. must implement the 250 marlin NMFS received public comment in that would have also allowed
landings limit to comply with U.S. the past regarding the publication and recreational fishing for BFT. Due to
international obligations and as part of timing of annual BFT specifications. concern over the status of BFT, NMFS
a strategy to implement appropriate Administrative or other delays in decided not to allow spearfishing for
measures to help limit billfish mortality. publishing the annual BFT BFT at this time.
Related to these comments, NMFS specifications can have adverse social During the public comment period,
received suggestions recommending that and economic impacts due to NMFS received comments expressing
the Agency automatically carry forward constituents’ inability to make informed confusion over the current regulatory
any underharvest to the following business decisions. NMFS did not regime regarding green-stick gear,
management period. Given that the change the proposed alternative as a unease over the potential impacts and
known level of U.S. recreational marlin result of public comment on the intent of the preferred alternative in the
landings has been within the 250 fish proposed rule. Under this rule, the Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, and
limit for three of the four reported years, annual BFT quota specifications would concern over potential negative impacts
and that the 2002 overharvest was offset establish baseline domestic quota of the green-stick gear. Therefore, NMFS
by the 2001 underharvest, the ecological category allocations, and adjust those is not finalizing alternative H4, which
benefits of this alternative are likely allocations based on the previous years would have authorized green-stick gear.
limited. As noted above, in the response under- and/or overharvest. Any delay in Rather, NMFS will work with the
to Comments 3 and 5 of the Atlantic publishing the annual BFT quota industry to ensure participants are
Billfish section, this rule allows specifications would prolong the familiar with current regulations.
underharvests to be carried forward. establishment of a baseline quota in any In regard to buoy gear, NMFS received
However the U.S. has made a of the domestic categories. public comments requesting that
commitment to ICCAT not to carry Fishermen have commented that commercial vessels be limited to
forward underharvest, given the knowing the exact schedule of BFT deploying fewer than 35 individual
uncertainty surrounding landings of RFDs prior to the season facilitates buoy gears. Additionally, commercial
fishermen familiar with this gear type part of a trip, in HMS closed areas and attach the handline to the vessel, it is
requested that they be allowed to attach that catch both demersal and pelagic projected to produce unquantifiable
multiple floatation devices to buoy gears species on those trips. Similar to the positive ecological impacts, including a
to aid in monitoring and retrieval, as comments received regarding alternative reduction in the bycatch of undersized
well as allow them to use ‘‘bite I1(b), there were concerns that, by swordfish, other undersized species,
indicator’’ floats that will alert them to establishing a species threshold when protected species, and target species
gears with fish attached. In response to fishing in HMS closed areas, this catches. Based upon public comment
public comment, NMFS modified the alternative would restrict the flexibility the practice of detaching handlines does
preferred alternative to allow fishermen of longline vessel operators to not appear to be widespread, but it may
to use more than one floatation device participate in different fishing activities be growing among a small number of
per gear and configure the gear depending upon the circumstances. vessel operators, primarily targeting
differently depending on vessel and Also, adverse economic impacts could swordfish in the East Florida Coast
crew capabilities, or weather and sea result if vessel operators are unable to closed area. According to public
conditions. This increased flexibility retain a portion of their catch that comment, recreational swordfish
may result in positive social impacts otherwise would have been retained on catches would most likely be affected,
and increased safety at sea. mixed fishing trips in the closed areas, as that is the primary target species. If
or if they must choose to fish outside of few recreational vessels are currently
I. Regulatory Housekeeping Measures
the closed areas. NMFS received other fishing with unattached handlines, then
The public also provided comments comments indicating that there could be any social or economic impacts
on the proposed regulatory additional costs on vessels if they are associated with this alternative would
housekeeping alternatives. NMFS boarded at sea by enforcement, and it be minimal. NMFS did not change this
requested public comment regarding was necessary to retrieve or observe fish alternative between proposed and final
whether or not to define ‘‘fishing floats’’ in the hold in order to calculate the rules.
in the regulations, and on potential percentages of demersal and pelagic NMFS received comments indicating
language for a ‘‘float’’ definition. Several species possessed onboard. The Agency, that the proposed alternative (I9(b)),
commenters indicated that the number however, still finds that this preferred which would require vessel owners to
of floats is not an appropriate gauge to alternative is important in maintaining report non-tournament recreational
determine the type of fishing gear that existing time/area closures. landing of North Atlantic swordfish and
is being deployed, and that the presence NMFS received comments supporting Atlantic billfish, could potentially
of ‘‘bullet floats,’’ anchors, or the type and opposing preferred alternative I2(b), disadvantage absentee vessel owners.
of mainline would be better indicators. which will require that the second Based upon this public comment, NMFS
Other commenters stated a float dorsal fin and anal fin remain on all modified this alternative slightly from
requirement would be an unnecessary sharks through landing. Some the proposed rule by specifying that a
burden that could diminish the comments confirmed that retention of vessel owner’s designee may also report
flexibility of vessel operators to the second dorsal and anal fins through landings in lieu of the owner, but the
participate in different fishing activities, landing could improve shark owner would be responsible for the
depending upon the circumstances. identification and species-specific requirement.
Finally, consultations with NMFS Office landing data. Other comments indicated Finally, NMFS received several
of Law Enforcement indicated that the that this alternative would do little to general comments regarding the
float requirement in alternative I1(b) improve shark identification. NMFS information presented regarding the
would not be practical. Based on these received comments that, although these HMS recreational sector. Section 3.5.2
comments, NMFS chose not to prefer fins are valuable, retaining them until of the FEIS provides detailed
alternative I1(b) in the FEIS. Although landing was acceptable. The Agency information regarding the data available
alternative I1(b) was preferred in received a comment opposing this and past research concerning HMS
conjunction with alternative I1(c) in the alternative due to the additional time recreational fisheries. Economic data on
Draft Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS and revenue losses that may result from recreational fishing is difficult to collect
believes that the objective of this removing the smaller/secondary fins and challenging to interpret.
alternative can be effectively achieved after docking. NMFS is finalizing this Nevertheless, NMFS has undertaken
by implementing alternative I1(c) proposed alternative. While offloading efforts to improve, update, and expand
(species composition of catch) alone. and processing procedures may initially upon the economic information
On the basis of public comment, have to be adjusted, in the long-term regarding HMS recreational fisheries.
NMFS modified the list of demersal this alternative will facilitate improved
‘‘indicator’’ species associated with A Description and an Estimate of the
quota monitoring and stock assessment
alternative I1(c) from the list in the Draft Number of Small Entities to which the
data which could result in a larger quota
Consolidated HMS FMP by removing Rule will Apply
and larger net revenues for both the
silky, great hammerhead, scalloped fishermen and dealers. NMFS considers all permit holders to
hammerhead, and smooth hammerhead Public comment suggests that, among be small entities as reflected in the
sharks from the list, and by adding active fishery participants, a Small Business Administration’s (SBA)
tilefish, blueline tilefish, and sand requirement for handlines to remain size standards for fishing entities (5
tilefish to the list. NMFS believes these attached to all vessels could potentially U.S.C. 604(a)(3)), and the SBA size
changes are appropriate because these reduce the number of handlines that standards for defining a small versus
shark species can be caught on both could be fished or deployed. large business entity in this industry.
pelagic and bottom longlines, and Operationally, it may be less efficient to All permit holders are considered to be
because the tilefish species are fish with several attached handlines, as small entities because they either had
representative of demersal fishing they may be more prone to gross receipts less than $3.5 million for
activity. entanglement. Because this alternative fish-harvesting, gross receipts less than
NMFS received comments indicating could restrict or limit fishing effort and $6.0 million for charter/party boats, or
that alternative I1(c) could adversely because NMFS does not know the 100 or fewer employees for wholesale
affect longline vessels that fish, at least number of handline users that already dealers. A full description of the
fisheries affected, the categories and measures, but will not likely change the small businesses for which they
number of permit holders, and reporting or compliance in the fishery. work. In addition, the estimated twenty
registered tournaments can be found in shark gillnet owners that will be
A Description of the Steps Taken to
the Final Consolidated HMS FMP. participating in required workshops will
Minimize the Significant Economic
The management measures in this each lose up to $424 in revenue share
Impact on Small Entities
final rule will apply to all HMS permit based on 2004 logbook data, as well as
holders. These currently include the One of the requirements of a FRFA is unquantified travel costs to attend a
approximately 576 permitted pelagic to describe the steps the agency has workshop.
and bottom longline vessels, 240 taken to minimize the significant NMFS will strive to host a number of
directed shark and 312 incidental shark economic impact on small entities workshops in regional fishing hubs in
permitted vessels, 4,824 General consistent with the stated objectives of order to minimize travel and lost fishing
category permit holders, 621 permitted applicable statutes and to describe why time. Besides the costs of travel and lost
shark and swordfish dealers, 416 each of the other significant alternatives time, NMFS does not anticipate any
to the rule considered by the agency was additional costs for workshop
permitted Atlantic tuna dealers, 4,173
rejected (5 U.S.C. 604(a)(5)). participants. NMFS will attempt to hold
CHB permit holders, 25,238 Angling
As noted earlier, NMFS considers all workshops during periods when the
permit holders, and 256 registered HMS permit holders to be small entities. In
tournaments. Other sectors of the HMS fishery is typically inactive, effectively
order to meet the objectives of this minimizing lost fishing time. To
fisheries such as dealers, processors, proposed FMP and the statutes (i.e.,
bait houses, and gear manufacturers, minimize the overall economic cost of
Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, ESA) as these workshops, this rule limits
some of which are considered small well as address the management
entities, might be indirectly affected by mandatory participation in these
concerns at hand, NMFS cannot exempt workshops to owners and operators.
the final measures, particularly time/ small entities or change the reporting
area closures, Atlantic billfish, and NMFS has also selected a recertification
requirements for small entities. Among period of 3 years that will allow for
authorized gear alternatives. However, other things, the final FMP will set sufficient retraining to maintain
the rule does not apply directly to them, quotas for the fishing season, retention proficiency and update fishermen on
unless otherwise noted above. As such, limits for the recreational fishery, and new research and development related
economic impacts on these other sectors gear restrictions, all of which would not to the subject matter, while not placing
(dealers, processors, bait houses, and be as effective with differing compliance an excessive economic burden on the
gear manufacturers) are discussed in and reporting requirements. participants due to lost fishing time and
Final Consolidated HMS FMP. As described below, NMFS travel. Two, three, and five year
A Description of the Projected considered a number of alternatives that recertification periods were considered.
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other could minimize the economic impact on In addition, to lower the costs of
Compliance Requirements of the Final small entities, particularly those recertification, NMFS is considering the
Rule pertaining to workshops, time/area use of alternative sources of media
closures, northern albacore tuna, including CD-ROM, DVDs, or web-based
This final rule will not result in finetooth sharks, Atlantic billfish, BFT media that would not result in travel
additional reporting, recordkeeping, and quota management, timeframe for costs or lost fishing time, and would
compliance requirements that will annual management, authorized fishing allow allow private certified trainers to
require new Paperwork Reduction Act gears, and regulatory housekeeping provide training at tailored times and
filings (5 U.S.C. 604(a)(4)). However, measures. locations to minimize any costs.
some of the final measures will modify The measures requiring mandatory
existing reporting and recordkeeping A. Workshops
workshops for all federally permitted
requirements. These include mandatory The final measures for the protected shark dealers was selected because
one day workshops for vessel owners, species safe handling, release, and species-specific identification of
vessel operators, and shark dealers; identification workshops require offloaded shark carcasses is much more
coordination efforts directed at mandatory workshops and certification difficult than other HMS, as evidenced
government efforts to gather additional on a three year renewal timeline for all by the large proportion of ‘‘unclassified’’
information about finetooth shark HMS pelagic and bottom longline vessel sharks listed on shark dealer logbooks.
mortality; and BFT dealer electronic owners and operators and shark gillnet The Agency will attempt to minimize
reporting option. In addition to the vessel owners and operators. They were economic impacts to shark dealers by
reporting and recordkeeping designed to minimize the economic holding workshops at fishing ports to
requirements of this rule, this rule impacts on fishermen, while complying minimize travel costs and during non-
includes compliance requirements (5 with the 2003 BiOp and the post-release peak fishing times to minimize
U.S.C. 604(a)(4)). These compliance mortality targets for protected resources perturbations to business activity, to the
requirements include requiring anglers established in the June 2004 BiOp. The extent possible. Dealers may also
aboard HMS permitted vessels that are protected species safe handling, release, specify proxies to attend workshops in
participating in an Atlantic billfish and identification workshops measure is order to increase flexibility, minimize
tournament to use only non-offset circle estimated to cost each bottom and costs, and increase the probability of
hooks when deploying natural baits or pelagic longline vessel owner up to having a trained individual at each
natural bait/artificial lure combinations, $281 and $448, respectively, in authorized dealer location. Similar
requiring the retention of shark second potentially lost revenue share as well as measures as those being considered for
dorsal and anal fins, and establishing unquantifiable travel costs to attend a the protected species safe handling,
the minimum and maximum number of workshop. The aggregate economic release, and identification recertification
floats for bottom longline and pelagic impact is estimated to be between are being considered for the Atlantic
longline gear definitions. Other $154,269 and $258,048 in the first year. shark identification workshops for shark
measures will change quota allocations, Longline vessel operators will also be dealers in order to minimize the
timeframes, authorized gear types, affected by this rule, but this rule might economic impacts caused by this
definitions, and other management not affect the economic well-being of measure.
Several alternatives were considered longline gear, a closure of 2,251 nm2 in because the U.S. is a small participant
for the workshop measures. The the Northeast to pelagic longline gear, a in this fishery, and would have larger
economic impacts of these alternatives closure of 101,670 nm2 in BFT economic impacts than the selected
are detailed in Final Consolidated HMS spawning areas in the Gulf of Mexico, alternative. The No Action alternative
FMP. The No Action and voluntary a closure west of 86° W longitude in the was rejected, because it would not
HMS identification workshop Gulf of Mexico to pelagic longline gear, include a rebuilding strategy in the
alternatives would have less onerous a closure of 46,956 nm2 in the Northeast FMP.
economic impacts relative to the to pelagic longline gear, a prohibition on
D. Finetooth Sharks
measures in this final rule. However, the use of bottom longline gear in an
these alternatives would not address the area off the Florida Keys to protect The final measure selected for
persistent problems associated with endangered smalltooth sawfish, and a finetooth shark management was
species-specific shark identification in prohibition on the use of pelagic designed to implement a plan that
dealer reports, nor satisfy the longline gear in HMS fisheries in all prevents overfishing while minimizing
requirements and goals of the Final areas. These closures alternatives were economic impacts incurred by
Consolidated HMS FMP, nor aid in not selected due to large economic fishermen and potential negative
rebuilding the shark fishery. impacts (ranging from an estimated ecological impacts. This alternative is
NMFS also considered two additional decrease in annual revenues as high as expected to have minimal to no
renewal timetables of two and five $10.9 million for a closure west of 86° economic impacts, because no new
years. A renewal timetable of five years W longitude year-round closure in the restrictions are being proposed at this
for protected species safe handling, Gulf of Mexico under the no- time. Long-term, the alternative will
release, and identification workshops redistribution of effort model) with have positive ecological and economic
would allow a more extensive period of variable ecological benefits between impacts by implementing a plan to
time to lapse between certification species when considering the address finetooth mortality in HMS and
workshops than necessary to maintain redistribution of effort. The details of other fisheries.
proficiency and provide updates on the economic impacts associated with Other alternatives considered were No
research and development of handling these other alternatives are provided in Action, commercial management
and dehooking protocols. In a similar Final Consolidated HMS FMP. In measures (e.g., gear restrictions, quota
fashion, recertification every five years addition to the closure alternatives, reduction), and recreational
for HMS identification workshops modifications to existing closures were management measures (e.g., gear
would also allow a more extensive also considered for the Charleston restrictions, minimum size increase).
period of time to lapse between Bump closure and the Northeastern U.S. Only the No Action alternative would
certification workshops than necessary closure, which would provide some have less economic impact relative to
to maintain proficiency in shark species economic relief but would not meet the preferred alternative. However, this
identification. ecological needs, and may result in alternative was not preferred because it
increased interactions with protected would not implement a plan to prevent
B. Time/Area Closures overfishing of finetooth sharks.
resources.
The final measures to implement The final measure will establish E. Atlantic Billfish
complementary measures in the criteria that will guide future decision-
Madison-Swanson and Steamboat making regarding implementation or The final measures for Atlantic
Lumps marine reserves, and to establish modification of time/area closures. This billfish management require the use of
criteria to be considered when will provide enhanced transparency, non-offset circle hooks by anglers
implementing new time/area closures or predictability, and understanding of fishing from HMS permitted vessels
modifying existing time/area closures, HMS management decisions. The time/ participating in Atlantic billfish
were designed to minimize economic area closure criteria will not have tournaments when deploying natural
impacts incurred by fishermen, while immediate impacts. Any ecological, baits or natural bait/artificial lure
simultaneously reducing the bycatch of social, or economic impacts of a specific combinations and implementing the
non-target HMS and protected species, closure or modified closure would be ICCAT marlin landings limits. This
such as sea turtles, in Atlantic HMS analyzed in the future when that requirement is designed to minimize
fisheries. The establishment of specific action is proposed. economic impacts incurred by the
complementary HMS regulations in the recreational fishing sector, while
Madison-Swanson and Steamboat C. Northern Albacore Tuna enhancing the management of the
Lumps marine reserves will result in The selected alternative for northern directed Atlantic billfish fishery.
minimal economic impacts (e.g., only albacore management, which will Requiring the use of non-offset circle
three commercial sets were reported in establish the foundation for developing hooks by anglers fishing from HMS
these areas between 1996 - 2004). an international rebuilding program, permitted vessels participating in
Creating these complementary HMS was designed to address rebuilding of Atlantic billfish tournaments when
regulations will consolidate and the northern albacore tuna fishery while deploying natural baits or natural bait/
simplify requirements for fishermen, simultaneously minimizing economic artificial lure combinations will likely
and therefore simplify compliance. This impacts incurred by fishermen. This have a minimal economic impact, since
measure will allow surface trolling from measure will have minimal economic it will not affect all billfish recreational
May through October to partially impacts, because it will not implement anglers, but only tournament
alleviate any negative economic impacts any additional restrictions at this time. participants. Therefore, the impacts on
associated with the closures for the Other alternatives considered were No hook manufacturers, retailers, and
HMS recreational and charter/headboat Action and taking unilateral anglers will likely be limited given that
sector. proportional reductions in northern J-hooks would continue to be permitted

Other time/area alternatives albacore tuna harvest. Taking unilateral outside of tournaments and within
considered in addition to the No Action action to address northern albacore tuna tournaments with artificial lures.
alternative were a closure of 11,191 nm2 on the part of the U.S. would likely not Impacts on tournaments will likely be
in the central Gulf of Mexico to pelagic be effective in rebuilding the stock minimal, given the increase in the
number of tournaments that provide HMS FMP. While the other alternatives TAC recommendation. This measure
special award categories or additional may have additional ecological benefits will have positive economic impacts to
points for billfish captured and released for billfish, the other alternatives would the domestic BFT fishery as a whole by
on circle hooks. This measure will also have larger economic impacts than the allowing BFT fishery participants, either
likely have high compliance rates given selected alternatives and could affect all commercial or recreational in nature, to
the self-policing that is likely to occur HMS anglers, not only those who are make better informed decisions on how
among tournament participants fishing for billfish. to best establish a business plan for the
competing for prizes, as well as the upcoming season.
F. BFT Quota Management Establishing an individual quota
increasing use of tournament observers.
Several measures were also The final measures for BFT quota category carryover limit for BFT and
considered to minimize the economic management include revised General authorization of the transfer of quota
impacts of the ICCAT marlin landings category time-periods and subquotas to exceeding the limit will have some
limits. These include the use of three allow for a formalized winter fishery, economic impacts as a result of limiting
separate levels of management measures clarified procedures for calculating the the amount of underharvest of the BFT
based upon marlin landing thresholds: Angling category school size-class quota that could be rolled over from one
(1) no in-season management action if subquota allocation, modification of the year to the next within a category.
marlin landings do not approach action BFT specification process and However, this measure was designed to
thresholds; (2)in-season minimum size streamlining annual under/overharvest mitigate any impacts by allowing NMFS
increases to slow the pace of marlin procedures, an individual quota to redistribute quota exceeding the
landings for the remainder of the fishing category carryover limit and proposed 100 percent rollover cap to the
year, if projections show the 250 marlin authorization of the transfer of quota Reserve or to other domestic quota
landing limit is being approached; and, exceeding limit, and revised and categories, provided the redistributions
(3) a shift to catch and release only consolidated criteria that would be are consistent with ICCAT
fishing for Atlantic marlin for the considered prior to performing a BFT recommendations and the redistribution
remainder of a fishing year, if the 250 inseason action. These measures were criteria.
marlin landing limit is achieved or designed to minimize economic impacts Revised and consolidated criteria that
projected to be achieved. Under the incurred by fishermen, while enhancing would be considered prior to
calendar year management cycle, this and clarifying BFT quota management performing a BFT inseason action will
three tiered approach also will help and inseason actions. result in slightly more positive
reduce any disproportionate economic Revised General category time-periods economic impacts as the criteria NMFS
impacts to CHB operators, tournaments, and subquotas to allow for a formalized must consider when making an inseason
and anglers who fish for marlin late in winter fishery will likely balance action determination will be
the fishing year or in late season consistent quota allocations and the consolidated and consistent regardless
tournaments by providing anglers the flexibility to amend them in a timely of what type of inseason action is being
greatest opportunity to land marlin over fashion. This measure will slightly considered. This will minimize
the entire fishing year. The ICCAT reduce General category quota from confusion and provide additional
landing limit measures may potentially early time periods, thereby allowing for transparency to the management
result in $1.3 to $2.7 million in a winter General category BFT fishery process.
economic impacts annually, if in-season during the months of December and Other alternatives considered
management actions become necessary. January, and increasing regional access. regarding bluefin tuna quota
However, barring substantial increases By shifting the allocated quota from the management in addition to the No
in effort and/or a change in angler June through August time-period, which Action alternatives were establishing
behavior, this is considered unlikely has an overall higher allocation, to a General category time-periods,
based on historical landings trends. later time-period any adverse impacts subquotas, and geographic set asides
Other alternatives considered for the will be mitigated by the increased annually via framework actions;
directed billfish fishery were No Action, revenue generated in the later time- establishing monthly General category
limiting all participants in the Atlantic period. time-periods and subquotas; revising the
HMS recreational fishery to using only The revised procedures for calculating General category time-periods and
non-offset circle hooks when deploying the Angling category school size-class subquotas to allow for a formalized
natural baits or natural bait/artificial subquota allocation will clarify the winter fishery with different time-
lure combinations in all HMS fisheries, procedures NMFS uses in calculating period allocations; eliminating the
increasing the minimum size limit for the ICCAT recommendation regarding underharvest quota carryover
Atlantic white and/or blue marlin, the 8 percent tolerance for BFT under provisions; and eliminating the BFT
implementing recreational bag limits of 115 cm. It would also maintain the inseason actions. These additional
one Atlantic billfish per vessel per trip, north/south dividing line that separates alternatives would not likely reduce
allowing only catch and release fishing the Angling category. This alternative is overall impacts to the fishery as a whole
for Atlantic white marlin, and allowing not likely to have an economic impact. relative to the selected final measures.
only catch-and-release fishing for The modification of the BFT
Atlantic blue marlin. Only the No specification process and streamlining G. Timeframe for Annual Management
Action alternative would have less annual under/overharvest procedures of HMS Fisheries
onerous economic impacts relative to will simplify quota allocations by The final measure that would shift the
the measures in this rule. However, the eliminating the need to allocate each time frame to a calendar year (January
No Action alternative would not satisfy domestic quota category’s baseline 1 to December 31) management cycle
the requirements and goals of allocation each year, as the allocation was designed to minimize economic
implementing the ICCAT percentages and the actual quota impacts on HMS fisheries and simplify
recommendations under ATCA, equivalents (measured in metric tons) HMS fishery management and reporting
rebuilding the Atlantic blue and white will be codified in the regulations to ICCAT. This measure will not affect
marlin fishery under the Magnuson- implementing the consolidated HMS the shark fishery, since that fishery is
Stevens Act, or the objectives of the FMP at least until ICCAT alters its BFT already operating under a calendar year.
The shift in the other HMS fisheries’ swordfish handgear fishery to continue identification, and enhancing regulatory
timeframe for annual management utilizing this gear type. This measure compliance. The final measure that will
would establish consistent timing will explicitly authorize this gear type differentiate between BLL and PLL gear
between U.S. domestic and but limit vessels to possessing and by using the species composition of
international management programs, deploying no more than 35 individual catch landed will more clearly define
reducing the complexity of U.S. reports floatation devices with each gear having the difference between BLL and PLL
to ICCAT and creating more transparent no more than two hooks or gangions gear using performance standards based
analyses in the U.S. National Report. attached. The economic impact of this on the composition of catch landed.
Setting an annual quota and other measure will likely be minimal, since This will help to clarify the difference
fishery specifications on a multi-year the upper limit on the number of buoys between these two gear types and
basis for BFT could mitigate any is based on information obtained about enhance compliance with time/area
potential negative impacts associated the fishery though public comment, and closures that place restrictions on these
with reduced business planning periods based on what NMFS has identified as two gear types. There could be some,
that may result from a calendar year the manageable upper limit for the but likely limited, economic impacts to
timeframe. The flexibility established in commercial sector. Furthermore, few vessels that may currently fish in gear
the billfish measures could partially current permit holders reporting fishing restricted time/areas closures that do
mitigate any negative regional economic with this gear (only seven vessels in not conform to the BLL and PLL
impacts to marlin tournaments, charters, 2004) and the use of this gear appears performance standards. This
and other related recreational fishing limited to the East Coast of Florida. performance based standard could
businesses. To facilitate the transition to Finally, the measure clarifying the adversely impact those longline vessels
a calendar year management timeframe allowance of secondary gears (also that regularly target both demersal and
for BFT and swordfish, the 2007 fishing known as cockpit gears) will likely pelagic species on the same trip, and
year would be abbreviated from June 1, reduce confusion over the allowable use that fish in PLL or BLL closed areas.
2007, through December 31, 2007, of secondary gears to subdue HMS Other alternatives considered in
which could provide slightly higher captured on primary authorized gears. addition to the No Action alternative
quotas during that time period and The use of these secondary gears might were to specify maximum and
slight positive impacts for fishermen. result in positive economic benefits minimum number of floats for BLL and
Other alternatives considered were to from anticipated increases in retention PLL gear, require time/depth recorders
maintain the current fishing year and to rates. on all HMS longlines, and base closures
shift the fishing year to June 1 - May 31 Other alternatives considered in on all longline vessels. Only the No
for all HMS species. These alternatives addition to No Action were to authorize Action alternative could have less
are not likely to result in economic speargun fishing gear in both the onerous economic impacts relative to
impacts substantially different than this commercial tuna handgear and the preferred alternative. However, the
final rule. However, they would not recreational tuna fisheries, authorizing No Action alternative would not address
meet the objectives of this action green-stick fishing gear, and authorizing the Agency’s concerns with
because these alternatives would not buoy gear in the commercial swordfish differentiating between bottom and
simplify the management program for handgear fishery with 50 floatation pelagic longline gear. The Agency did
HMS fisheries and improve the U.S. devices with no more than 15 hooks or not prefer the alternative that would
basis for negotiations at international gangions attached to each gear. None of specify a maximum and minimum
forums that use calendar year reporting the non-preferred alternatives would allowable number of commercial fishing
data. have fewer economic impacts than the floats to distinguish between BLL and
preferred alternatives. The alternative to PLL fishing gear because floats are not
H. Authorized Fishing Gears authorize speargun fishing gear in both easily defined and the alternative may
The final measures to authorize the commercial tuna handgear and be impracticable to enforce. The float
speargun fishing gear for BAYS tunas in recreational tuna fisheries was not requirement could also result in
the recreational Atlantic tuna fishery, selected because it could result in some unnecessary burden that could diminish
authorize buoy gear in the commercial additional effort from commercial the flexibility of vessel operators to
swordfish handgear fishery, and allow handgear tuna fishing and potentially participate in different fishing activities,
secondary gears (also known as cockpit impact BFT stocks. Green-stick gear was depending on the circumstances.
gears), were designed to reduce the not preferred because of a lack of data Requiring the use of time/depth
economic impacts to fishermen and from established monitoring programs recorders was not preferred because
even enhance economic opportunities to determine the ecological impacts of they could cost vessels between $1,400
in recreational and commercial fishing. formally introducing this gear and the and $6,600 to acquire and the reduced
Specifically, the measure authorizing potential for increases in fishing effort efficiencies associated with their use
speargun fishing will enhance economic and landings on YFT and other HMS. could cause increases in the mortality of
opportunities in the tuna recreational Finally, the alternative authorizing buoy discarded fish. The Agency did not
fishery by including a new authorized gear in the commercial swordfish select the alternative that based HMS
class of recreational fishing, speargun handgear fishery with 50 floatation time/area closures on all longline
fishing. devices and no more than 15 hooks or vessels since it would have significant
The swordfish handgear fishery may gangions attached was expected to have economic impacts.
currently utilize individual handlines additional negative ecological impacts The final measure for shark
attached to free-floating buoys; however, compared to the preferred alternative. identification, which will require that
the final measure will require that the second dorsal fin and anal fin
handlines used in HMS fisheries be I. Regulatory Housekeeping Measures remain attached on all sharks, addresses
attached to a vessel. Changing the The final measures for regulatory issues associated with shark species
definition of individual free-floating housekeeping items were designed to identification, but will be flexible
buoyed lines, that are currently minimize economic impacts, while also enough to allow fishermen to remove
considered to be handlines, to ‘‘buoy clarifying regulatory definitions and the most valuable fins in order to
gear,’’ will allow the commercial requirements, facilitating species minimize the economic impacts of this
alternative. Fishermen could unattached handline gear would be vessel owners versus individual anglers.
experience, in the short-term, some defined as ‘‘buoy gear’’ and authorized The other alternative considered, No
adverse economic impacts associated exclusively for use in the directed Action, might result in less economic
with lower revenues associated with commercial swordfish fishery. Other burden to small businesses but would
keeping the second dorsal and anal fins alternatives considered were No Action not satisfy the goal of improving
on sharks. Other alternatives considered and to require handlines be attached to reporting or other objectives of the
in addition to the No Action alternative recreational vessels only. These two Consolidated HMS FMP because NMFS
were to require the dorsal and anal fin alternatives could have fewer economic suspects that individual recreational
on all sharks except lemon and nurse impacts relative to the selected fishermen may not properly report
sharks and to require that all fins on all alternative, but they would not meet the landings.
sharks be retained. The No Action ecological objectives of the final The final measures will include a
alternative and the alternative requiring Consolidated HMS FMP of limiting the provision to conduct additional
the dorsal and anal fin on all sharks potential future expansion of the discussions at ICCAT regarding the
except lemon and nurse sharks could handline sector and possibly reducing long-term implications of allowing
have fewer economic impacts relative to the amount of gear lost. unused BFT quota from the previous
the preferred alternative. These The final measure prohibiting year being added to the subsequent
alternatives, however, would not satisfy commercial vessels from retaining year’s allocation. Depending on the
enforcement and species identification billfish will not have any economic results of these discussions, the
needs, such as improving the accuracy impacts because current regulations do regulations and operational procedures
of dealer reporting of sharks landed by not allow these vessels to sell billfish may need to be further amended in the
species needed for accurate stock that are landed. This alternative will future. In the interim, NMFS would
assessments and quota monitoring, and clarify and consolidate the requirements maintain the current regulatory text, but
enabling enforcement officers to identify for commercial vessels to make them would amend the practice of allowing
when fishermen illegally keep fins from consistent with the regulations under/overharvest of the set-aside
species that are different from those prohibiting vessels with pelagic longline allocation to be rolled into, or deducted
they land or species that cannot be gear from retaining billfish. The only from, the subsequent fishing year’s set-
landed. Furthermore, requiring all fins other alternative considered was No aside allocation. Other alternatives
to remain on all sharks through landing Action, which could have less social considered include No Action and
would result in the largest economic impacts than the selected alternative but amending the regulatory text to clarify
burden of any of the alternatives since it would not satisfy ecological needs of
that rollover provisions would apply to
the current offloading process and the rebuilding billfish stocks because there
this set-aside quota. Accumulation of
transition of fish between dealers and is potential that commercial fishermen
incidental quota under a rollover
fishermen is dependent on fins being could retain billfish for their own
provision could possibly provide an
removed from the shark before the personal use under the No Action
incentive to target BFT with longline
sharks are offloaded. alternative.
The final measure that will allow gear, and thus this alternative would not
The final measures that will prohibit
Atlantic tuna dealers the flexibility to fully reflect the intent of the 2002
the purchase or sale of HMS from
submit reports using the Internet, once ICCAT BFT quota recommendation.
vessels in excess of retention limits will
enhance compliance with current this option is available, will potentially Finally, the final measure that will
regulations by consolidating the simplify reporting and reduce costs. The require recreational vessels with a
requirement for both vessels and other alternatives considered were No Federal permit to comply with Federal
dealers. These measures will have Action and requiring BFT dealers to regulations regardless of where they are
minimal economic impact on dealers report online (with specific exceptions). fishing, would standardize compliance
and vessels following the current These alternatives would not result in with HMS regulations for vessels
retention limits. The only additional less economic burden than the final rule possessing a Federal HMS permit. This
alternative considered was No Action, because it would provide dealers with will likely simplify compliance with
which would have less economic the option of a more efficient data regulations, except in cases where a
impact than the preferred alternatives reporting option that might better fit state has more restrictive regulations.
but would not satisfy the enforcement or with their operations. The other alternative considered was No
monitoring objectives of eliminating the The final measures requiring and Action, which could have marginally
potential for the sale of illegally specifying submission dates of no less economic impact than the preferred
harvested HMS in excess of commercial fishing, cost-earnings, and annual alternative, but it would not simplify
retention limits. expenditures reporting forms will and enhance compliance with HMS
The final measure to clarify the clarify current regulations and recreational fishing regulations.
regulations for the East Florida Coast potentially enhance compliance. The Small Entity Compliance Guide
closed area will make its outer boundary other alternative considered was No
consistent with the outer boundary of Action; that alternative would not meet Section 212 of the Small Business
the EEZ. This measure is not expected the NMFS’ objectives to collect quality Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
to have any economic impact since data to manage the fishery because 1996 states that, for each rule or group
fishing activity is likely to be limited in fishermen were not providing complete of related rules for which an agency is
this small area. The alternative is to and accurate data. Neither alternative is required to prepare a FRFA, the agency
retain the current technical error under expected to have any economic impacts. shall publish one or more guides to
the No Action alternative, which results The final measure that will require assist small entities in complying with
in confusion. vessel owners, or their designee, to the rule, and shall designate such
The measure to clarify the definition report non-tournament recreational publications as ‘‘small entity
of ‘‘handline gear’’ by requiring that landings will clarify and simplify the compliance guides.’’ The agency shall
they remained attached to, or in contact reporting process by codifying the explain the actions a small entity is
with, a vessel is expected to have only current prevalent practice of required to take to comply with a rule
minimal economic impacts, since recreational landings being reported by or group of rules. Copies of the
compliance guide for this final rule is the time the fish product was exported Fishery Authorized gear types
available (see ADDRESSES). from the U.S. or a U.S. insular
possession. Once a system is available, B. Swordfish B. Rod and reel,
List of Subjects recreational fish- handline.
permit holders will also be able to
50 CFR Part 300 submit the forms electronically via the ery.
Internet. * * * * *
Fisheries, Foreign relations, Reporting I. Tuna rec- I. Speargun gear (for
and recordkeeping requirements, (c) * * * reational fishery. bigeye, albacore, yel-
Treaties. (3) Reporting requirements. For each lowfin, and skipjack
re-export, when required under this tunas only); Rod and
50 CFR Part 600 paragraph (c), a permit holder must reel, handline (all tunas).
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, submit the original of the completed re- * * * * *
Foreign relations, Penalties, Reporting export certificate and the original or a L. Atlantic billfish L. Rod and reel.
copy of the original statistical document recreational fish-
and recordkeeping requirements. ery.
completed as specified under paragraph
50 CFR Part 635 * * * * *
(c)(2) of this section, to accompany the
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, shipment of such products to their re-
Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, export destination. A copy of the PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY
Reporting and recordkeeping completed statistical document and re- MIGRATORY SPECIES
requirements, Treaties. export certificate, when required under
this paragraph (c), must be postmarked ■ 6. The authority citation for part 635
Dated: September 22, 2006. continues to read as follows:
and mailed by said permit holder to
William T. Hogarth, Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C.
NMFS, at an address designated by
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 1801 et seq.
NMFS, within 24 hours of the time the
National Marine Fisheries Service.
shipment was re-exported from the U.S. PART 635 [AMENDED]
■ For the reasons set out in the Once a system is available, permit
preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR holders will also be able to submit the ■ 7. In part 635, remove the phrase
chapters III and VI as follows: forms electronically via the Internet. ‘‘Northeast Distant closed area’’
wherever it appears and add in its place
CHAPTER III—INTERNATIONAL FISHING * * * * * ‘‘Northeast Distant gear restricted area’’.
AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
CHAPTER VI—FISHERY CONSERVATION ■ 8. Section 635.2 is amended by:
PART 300—INTERNATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL OCEANIC A. Revising the definitions of ‘‘East
AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, Florida Coast closed area’’, ‘‘Fishing
FISHERIES REGULATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE year’’, ‘‘Handgear’’, ‘‘Handline’’, and
Subpart M—International Trade ‘‘Shark’’.
PART 600—MAGNUSON-STEVENS B. Revising paragraph (5) under the
Documentation and Tracking
ACT PROVISIONS definition of ‘‘Management unit’’.
Programs for Highly Migratory Species
C. Removing the definition of ‘‘ILAP’’.
■ 1. The authority citation for subpart M ■ 4. The authority citation for part 600 D. Adding definitions, in alphabetical
continues to read as follows: continues to read as follows: order, for ‘‘Atlantic shark identification
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 951–961 and 971 et Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561 and 16 U.S.C. 1801 workshop certificate’’, ‘‘BAYS’’, ‘‘Buoy
seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. et seq. gear’’, ‘‘Floatation device’’, ‘‘Madison-
■ 2. In § 300.182, paragraph (d) is ■ 5. Section 600.725, paragraph (v), Swanson closed area’’, ‘‘Protected
revised to read as follows: heading ‘‘IX. Secretary of Commerce’’, is species safe handling, release, and
amended by: identification workshop certificate’’,
§ 300.182 HMS international trade permit. A. Redesignating entries 1.B. through ‘‘Speargun fishing gear’’, and
* * * * * 1.J. as entries 1.C. through 1.K., ‘‘Steamboat Lumps closed area’’.
(d) Duration. Any permit issued respectively. The additions and revisions read as
under this section is valid for the period B. Redesignating entry 2. as entry 1.L. follows:
specified on it, unless suspended or and entry 3. as entry 2., respectively. § 635.2 Definitions.
revoked. C. Adding entry 1.B.
D. Revising entry 1. introductory * * * * *
* * * * * Atlantic shark identification
■ 3. In § 300.185, paragraphs (b)(3) and paragraph, entry 1.A, and newly
workshop certificate means the
(c)(3) are revised to read as follows: redesignated entries 1.I. and 1.L.
document issued by NMFS, or its
The additions and revisions read as
§ 300.185 Documentation, reporting and
designee, indicating that the person
follows:
recordkeeping requirements for statistical named on the certificate has
documents and re-export certificates. § 600.725 General prohibitions. successfully completed the Atlantic
* * * * * shark identification workshop.
* * * * *
(b) * * * (v) * * * * * * * *
(3) Reporting requirements. A permit BAYS means Atlantic bigeye,
holder must ensure that the original Fishery Authorized gear types albacore, yellowfin, and skipjack tunas
statistical document, as completed as defined in § 600.10 of this part.
under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, * * * * * * * * * *
IX. Secretary of Commerce Buoy gear means a fishing gear
accompanies the export of such
1. Atlantic Highly consisting of one or more floatation

products to their export destination. A Migratory Species
copy of the statistical document must be devices supporting a single mainline to
Fisheries (FMP):
postmarked and mailed by said permit A. Swordfish A. Rod and reel, har- which no more than two hooks or
holder to NMFS, at an address handgear fishery. poon, handline, bandit gangions are attached.
designated by NMFS, within 24 hours of gear, buoy gear. * * * * *
East Florida Coast closed area means HMS protected species safe handling, fish in a recreational HMS fishing
the Atlantic Ocean area seaward of the release, and identification workshop. tournament if the vessel has registered
inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ from a * * * * * for, paid an entry fee to, and is fishing
point intersecting the inner boundary of Shark means one of the oceanic under the rules of a tournament that has
the U.S. EEZ at 31°00′ N. lat. near Jekyll species, or a part thereof, listed in Table registered with NMFS’ HMS
Island, GA, and proceeding due east to 1 of Appendix A to this part. Management Division as required under
connect by straight lines the following * * * * * § 635.5(d). When a vessel issued a valid
coordinates in the order stated: 31°00′ Speargun fishing gear means a Atlantic Tunas General category permit
N. lat., 78°00′ W. long.; 28°17′10″ N. lat., muscle-powered speargun equipped is fishing in such a tournament, such
79°11′24″ W. long.; then proceeding with a trigger mechanism, a spear with vessel must comply with HMS Angling
along the outer boundary of the EEZ to a tip designed to penetrate and retain category regulations, except as provided
the intersection of the EEZ with 24°00′ fish, and terminal gear. Terminal gear in paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
N. lat.; then proceeding due west to may include, but is not limited to, * * * * *
24°00′ N. lat., 81°47′ W. long.; and then trailing lines, reels, and floats. The term (d) * * *
proceeding due north to intersect the ‘‘muscle-powered speargun’’ for the (4) A person can obtain a limited
inner boundary of the U.S. EEZ at 81°47′ purposes of this part means a speargun access Atlantic Tunas Longline category
W. long. near Key West, FL. that stores potential energy provided permit for a vessel only if the vessel has
* * * * * from the operator’s muscles, and that been issued both a limited access permit
Fishing year means— releases only the amount of energy that for shark and a limited access permit,
(1) For Atlantic tunas and swordfish, the operator has provided to it from his other than handgear, for swordfish.
before January 1, 2008 — June 1 through or her own muscles. Common energy Limited access Atlantic Tunas Longline
May 31. On or after January 1, 2008 — storing methods for muscle-powered category permits may only be obtained
January 1 through December 31. spearguns include compressing air and through transfer from current owners
(2) For Atlantic billfish, On or after springs, and the stretching of rubber consistent with the provisions under
January 1, 2007 — January 1 through bands. paragraph (l)(2) of this section.
December 31. Steamboat Lumps closed area means * * * * *
(3) For sharks — January 1 through a rectangular-shaped area in the Gulf of (e) * * *
December 31. Mexico bounded by straight lines (1) The only valid Federal commercial
* * * * * connecting the following coordinates in vessel permits for sharks are those that
Floatation device means any the order stated: 28°14′ N. lat., 84°48′ W. have been issued under the limited
positively buoyant object rigged to be long.; 28°14′ N. lat., 84°37′ W. long.; access program consistent with the
attached to a fishing gear. 28°03′ N. lat., 84°37′ W. long.; 28°03′ N. provisions under paragraphs (l) and (m)
* * * * * lat., 84°48′ W. long.; and 28°14′ N. lat., of this section.
84°48′ W. long. (2) The owner of each vessel used to
Handgear means handline, harpoon,
* * * * * fish for or take Atlantic sharks or on
rod and reel, bandit gear, buoy gear, or
■ 9. In § 635.4, paragraphs (a)(10), (c)(2), which Atlantic sharks are retained,
speargun gear.
(d)(4), (e)(1), (e)(2), (f)(1), (f)(2), (h)(2), possessed with an intention to sell, or
Handline means fishing gear that is
(l)(1), (l)(2)(i), (l)(2)(ii)(B), (l)(2)(ii)(C), sold must obtain, in addition to any
attached to, or in contact with, a vessel;
(l)(2)(viii), (l)(2)(ix), (m)(1), and (m)(2) other required permits, only one of two
that consists of a mainline to which no
are revised to read as follows: types of commercial limited access
more than two hooks or gangions may
shark permits: Shark directed limited
be attached; and that is released and
§ 635.4 Permits and fees. access permit or shark incidental
retrieved by hand rather than by
* * * * * limited access permit. It is a rebuttable
mechanical means.
(a) * * * presumption that the owner or operator
* * * * * (10) Permit condition. An owner of a of a vessel on which sharks are
Madison-Swanson closed area means vessel with a valid swordfish, shark, possessed in excess of the recreational
a rectangular-shaped area in the Gulf of HMS Angling, or HMS Charter/ retention limits intends to sell the
Mexico bounded by straight lines Headboat permit issued pursuant to this sharks.
connecting the following coordinates in part must agree, as a condition of such * * * * *
the order stated: 29°17′ N. lat., 85°50′ W. permit, that the vessel’s HMS fishing, (f) * * *
long.; 29°17′ N. lat., 85°38′ W. long.; catch, and gear are subject to the (1) The owner of each vessel used to
29°06′ N. lat., 85°38′ W. long.; 29°06′ N. requirements of this part during the fish for or take Atlantic swordfish or on
lat., 85°50′ W. long.; and 29°17′ N. lat., period of validity of the permit, without which Atlantic swordfish are retained,
85°50′ W. long. regard to whether such fishing occurs in possessed with an intention to sell, or
Management unit * * * the U.S. EEZ, or outside the U.S. EEZ, sold must obtain, in addition to any
* * * * * and without regard to where such HMS, other required permits, only one of three
(5) For sharks, means all fish of the or gear, are possessed, taken, or landed. types of commercial limited access
species listed in Table 1 of Appendix A However, when a vessel fishes within swordfish permits: Swordfish directed
to this part, in the western north the waters of a state that has more limited access permit, swordfish
Atlantic Ocean, including the Gulf of restrictive regulations pertaining to incidental limited access permit, or
Mexico and the Caribbean Sea. HMS, persons aboard the vessel must swordfish handgear limited access
* * * * * abide by the state’s more restrictive permit. It is a rebuttable presumption
Protected species safe handling, regulations. that the owner or operator of a vessel on
release, and identification workshop * * * * * which swordfish are possessed in excess

certificate means the document issued (c) * * * of the recreational retention limits
by NMFS, or its designee, indicating (2) A vessel with a valid Atlantic intends to sell the swordfish.
that the person named on the certificate Tunas General category permit issued (2) The only valid commercial Federal
has successfully completed the Atlantic under paragraph (d) of this section may vessel permits for swordfish are those
that have been issued under the limited (C) Subsequent to the issuance of a Stevens Act and ATCA have been
access program consistent with the limited access permit, the vessel’s submitted, including those described in
provisions under paragraphs (l) and (m) length overall, gross registered tonnage, § 635.5 and § 300.185 of this title, the
of this section. and net tonnage may be increased only applicant is not subject to a permit
* * * * * once, relative to the baseline sanction or denial under paragraph
(h) * * * specifications of the vessel initially (a)(6) of this section, and the workshop
(2) Limited access permits for issued the LAP, whether through requirements specified in § 635.8 are
swordfish and shark. See paragraph (l) refitting, replacement, or transfer. An met.
of this section for transfers of LAPs for increase in any of these three (2) Shark, swordfish, and tuna
shark and swordfish. See paragraph (m) specifications of vessel size may not longline LAPs. The owner of a vessel of
of this section for renewals of LAPs for exceed 10 percent of the baseline the U.S. that fishes for, possesses, lands
shark and swordfish. specifications of the vessel initially or sells shark or swordfish from the
issued the LAP. If any of these three management unit, takes or possesses
* * * * *
specifications is increased, any increase such shark or swordfish as incidental
(l) * * *
in the other two must be performed at catch, or that fishes for Atlantic tunas
(1) General. A permit issued under
the same time. This type of upgrade may with longline gear must have the
this section is not transferable or
be done separately from an engine applicable limited access permit(s)
assignable to another vessel or owner or
horsepower upgrade. issued pursuant to the requirements in
dealer; it is valid only for the vessel or
paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section.
owner or dealer to whom it is issued. If * * * * *
Only persons holding a non-expired
a person acquires a vessel or dealership (viii) As specified in paragraph (f)(4)
limited access permit(s) in the
and wants to conduct activities for of this section, a directed or incidental
preceding year are eligible to renew a
which a permit is required, that person LAP for swordfish, a directed or an
limited access permit(s). Transferors
must apply for a permit in accordance incidental catch LAP for shark, and an
may not renew limited access permits
with the provisions of paragraph (h) of Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit
that have been transferred according to
this section or, if the acquired vessel is are required to retain swordfish for
the procedures of paragraph (l) of this
permitted in either the shark, swordfish, commercial purposes. Accordingly, a
section.
or tuna longline fishery, in accordance LAP for swordfish obtained by transfer
■ 10. In § 635.5, paragraph (a)(4) is
with paragraph (1)(2) of this section. If without either a directed or incidental
catch shark LAP or an Atlantic tunas removed; paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) are
the acquired vessel or dealership is
Longline category permit will not entitle redesignated as paragraphs (a)(4) and
currently permitted, an application
an owner or operator to use a vessel to (a)(5), respectively; and paragraphs
must be accompanied by the original
fish in the swordfish fishery. (a)(1), (b)(2)(i)(A), (b)(2)(i)(B), (b)(3),
permit, by a copy of a signed bill of sale
(c)(2) and (d) are revised to read as
or equivalent acquisition papers, and (ix) As specified in paragraph (d)(4) of
follows:
the appropriate workshop certificates as this section, a directed or incidental
specified in § 635.8. LAP for swordfish, a directed or an § 635.5 Recordkeeping and reporting.
(2) * * * incidental catch LAP for shark, and an * * * * *
(i) Subject to the restrictions on Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit (a) * * *
upgrading the harvesting capacity of are required to retain Atlantic tunas (1) Logbooks. If an owner of an HMS
permitted vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) taken by pelagic longline gear. charter/headboat vessel, an Atlantic
of this section and to the limitations on Accordingly, an Atlantic Tunas tunas vessel, a shark vessel, or a
ownership of permitted vessels in Longline category permit obtained by swordfish vessel, for which a permit has
paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this section, an transfer without either a directed or been issued under § 635.4(b), (d), (e), or
owner may transfer a shark or swordfish incidental catch swordfish or shark LAP (f), is selected for logbook reporting in
LAP or an Atlantic Tunas Longline will not entitle an owner or operator to writing by NMFS, he or she must
category permit to another vessel that he use the permitted vessel to fish in the maintain and submit a fishing record on
or she owns or to another person. Atlantic tunas fishery with pelagic a logbook form specified by NMFS.
Directed handgear LAPs for swordfish longline gear. Entries are required regarding the
may be transferred to another vessel but (m) * * * vessel’s fishing effort and the number of
only for use with handgear and subject (1) General. Persons must apply fish landed and discarded. Entries on a
to the upgrading restrictions in annually for a dealer permit for Atlantic day’s fishing activities must be entered
paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section and tunas, sharks, and swordfish, and for an on the logbook form within 48 hours of
the limitations on ownership of Atlantic HMS Angling, HMS Charter/ completing that day’s activities or before
permitted vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) Headboat, tunas, shark, or swordfish offloading, whichever is sooner. The
of this section. Incidental catch LAPs vessel permit. Except as specified in the owner or operator of the vessel must
are not subject to the requirements instructions for automated renewals, submit the logbook form(s) postmarked
specified in paragraphs (l)(2)(ii) and persons must submit a renewal within 7 days of offloading all Atlantic
(l)(2)(iii) of this section. application to NMFS, along with a copy HMS. If no fishing occurred during a
(ii) * * * of the applicable valid workshop calendar month, a no-fishing form so
(B) Subsequent to the issuance of a certificate or certificates, if required stating must be submitted postmarked
limited access permit, the vessel’s pursuant to § 635.8, at an address no later than 7 days after the end of that
horsepower may be increased only once, designated by NMFS, at least 30 days month. If an owner of an HMS charter/
relative to the baseline specifications of before a permit’s expiration to avoid a headboat vessel, Atlantic tunas vessel,
the vessel initially issued the LAP, lapse of permitted status. NMFS will shark vessel, or swordfish vessel,
whether through refitting, replacement, renew a permit if the specific permitted under § 635.4(b), (d), (e), or
or transfer. Such an increase may not requirements for the requested permit (f), is selected in writing by NMFS to
exceed 20 percent of the baseline are met, including those described in complete the cost-earnings portion of
specifications of the vessel initially paragraph(l)(2) of this section, all the logbook(s), the owner or operator
issued the LAP. reports required under the Magnuson- must maintain and submit the cost-
earnings portion of the logbook Headboat category must report all non- letters or arabic numerals in a color that
postmarked no later than 30 days after tournament landings of Atlantic blue contrasts with the background color of
completing the offloading for each trip marlin, Atlantic white marlin, and the float or high-flyer.
fishing for Atlantic HMS during that Atlantic sailfish, and all non- (2) An unmarked handline, buoy gear,
calendar year, and submit the Atlantic tournament and non-commercial harpoon, longline, or gillnet, is illegal
Highly Migratory Species Annual landings of North Atlantic swordfish to and may be disposed of in an
Expenditures form(s) postmarked no NMFS by calling a number designated appropriate manner by NMFS or an
later than the date specified on the form by NMFS within 24 hours of the authorized officer.
of the following year. landing. For telephone reports, the * * * * *
* * * * * owner, or the owners designee, must ■ 12. Add § 635.8 under subpart A to
(b) * * * provide a contact phone number so that read as follows:
(2) * * * a NMFS designee can call the vessel
(i) * * * owner, or the owner’s designee, for § 635.8 Workshops.
(A) Landing reports. Each dealer with follow up questions and to confirm the (a) Protected species release,
a valid Atlantic tunas permit issued reported landing. The telephone landing disentanglement, and identification
under § 635.4 must submit a completed report has not been completed unless workshops. (1) Both the owner and
landing report on a form available from the vessel owner, or the owner’s operator of a vessel that fishes with
NMFS for each BFT received from a designee, has received a confirmation longline or gillnet gear must be certified
U.S. fishing vessel. Such report must be number from a NMFS designee. by NMFS, or its designee, as having
submitted by electronic facsimile (fax) * * * * * completed a workshop on the safe
or, once available, via the Internet, to a (d) Tournament operators. For all handling, release, and identification of
number or a web address designated by tournaments that are conducted from a protected species before a shark or
NMFS not later than 24 hours after port in an Atlantic coastal state, swordfish limited access vessel permit,
receipt of the BFT. A landing report including the U.S. Virgin Islands and pursuant to § 635.4(e) and (f), is
must indicate the name and permit Puerto Rico, a tournament operator must renewed in 2007. For the purposes of
number of the vessel that landed the register with the NMFS’ HMS this section, it is a rebuttable
BFT and must be signed by the Management Division, at least 4 weeks presumption that a vessel fishes with
permitted vessel’s owner or operator prior to commencement of the longline or gillnet gear if: longline or
immediately upon transfer of the BFT. tournament by submitting information gillnet gear is onboard the vessel;
The dealer must inspect the vessel’s on the purpose, dates, and location of logbook reports indicate that longline or
permit to verify that the required vessel the tournament to NMFS. A tournament gillnet gear was used on at least one trip
name and vessel permit number as is not registered unless the tournament in the preceding year; or, in the case of
listed on the permit are correctly operator has received a confirmation a permit transfer to new owners that
recorded on the landing report and to number from the NMFS’ HMS occurred less than a year ago, logbook
verify that the vessel permit has not Management Division. NMFS will notify reports indicate that longline or gillnet
expired. the tournament operator in writing gear was used on at least one trip since
(B) Bi-weekly reports. Each dealer when a tournament has been selected the permit transfer.
with a valid Atlantic tunas permit for reporting. Tournament operators that (2) NMFS, or its designee, will issue
issued under § 635.4 must submit a bi- are selected to report must maintain and a protected species safe handling,
weekly report on forms available from submit to NMFS a record of catch and release, and identification workshop
NMFS for BFT received from U.S. effort on forms available from NMFS. certificate to any person who completes
vessels. For BFT received from U.S. Tournament operators must submit the a protected species safe handling,
vessels on the 1st through the 15th of completed forms to NMFS, at an address release, and identification workshop. If
each month, the dealer must submit the designated by NMFS, postmarked no an owner owns multiple vessels, NMFS
bi-weekly report form to NMFS later than the 7th day after the will issue a certificate for each vessel
postmarked or, once available, conclusion of the tournament, and must that the owner owns upon successful
electronically submitted via the Internet attach a copy of the tournament rules. completion of one workshop. An owner
not later than the 25th of that month. * * * * * who is also an operator will be issued
Reports of BFT received on the 16th ■ 11. In § 635.6, paragraphs (c)(1) and multiple certificates, one as the owner
through the last day of each month must (c)(2) are revised to read as follows: of the vessel and one as the operator.
be postmarked or, once available, (3) The owner of a vessel that fishes
electronically submitted via the Internet § 635.6 Vessel and gear identification. with longline or gillnet gear, as
not later than the 10th of the following * * * * * specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
month. (c) * * * section, is required to possess on board
* * * * * (1) The owner or operator of a vessel the vessel a valid protected species safe
(3) Recordkeeping. Dealers must for which a permit has been issued handling, release, and identification
retain at their place of business a copy under § 635.4 and that uses handline, workshop certificate issued to that
of each report required under buoy gear, harpoon, longline, or gillnet, vessel owner. A copy of a valid
paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and must display the vessel’s name, protected species safe handling, release,
(b)(2)(i) of this section for a period of 2 registration number or Atlantic Tunas, and identification workshop certificate
years from the date on which each HMS Angling, or HMS Charter/ issued to the vessel owner for a vessel
report was required to be submitted. Headboat permit number on each float that fishes with longline or gillnet gear
(c) * * * attached to a handline, buoy gear, or must be included in the application
(2) Billfish and North Atlantic harpoon, and on the terminal floats and package to renew or obtain a shark or
swordfish. The owner, or the owner’s high-flyers (if applicable) on a longline swordfish limited access permit.
designee, of a vessel permitted, or or gillnet used by the vessel. The (4) An operator that fishes with
required to be permitted, in the Atlantic vessel’s name or number must be at longline or gillnet gear as specified in
HMS Angling or Atlantic HMS Charter/ least 1 inch (2.5 cm) in height in block paragraph (a)(1) of this section must
possess on board the vessel a valid certificate issued to the dealer or proxy certificates for additional places of
protected species safe handling, release, must be included in the dealer’s business authorized to receive sharks
and identification workshop certificate application package to obtain or renew that they own as long as they, and not
issued to that operator, in addition to a a shark dealer permit. If multiple a proxy, were issued the certificate. All
certificate issued to the vessel owner. businesses are authorized to receive certificates must be renewed prior to the
(5) All owners and operators that sharks under the dealer’s permit, a copy date of expiration on the certificate.
attended and successfully completed of the workshop certificate for each (7) To receive either the protected
industry certification workshops, held business must be included in the shark species safe handling, release, and
on April 8, 2005, in Orlando, FL, and on dealer permit renewal application identification workshop certificate or
June 27, 2005, in New Orleans, LA, as package. Atlantic shark identification workshop
documented by workshop facilitators, (c) Terms and conditions. (1) certificate, persons required to attend
will automatically receive valid Certificates, as described in paragraphs the workshop must show a copy of their
protected species safe handling, release, (a) and (b) of this section, are valid for HMS permit, as well as proof of
and identification workshop certificates three calendar years. All certificates identification to NMFS or NMFS’
issued by NMFS no later than December must be renewed prior to the expiration designee at the workshop. If a permit
31, 2006. date on the certificate. holder is a corporation, partnership,
(b) Atlantic shark identification (2) If a vessel fishes with longline or association, or any other entity, the
workshops. (1) As of December 31, 2007, gillnet gear as described in paragraph (a) individual attending on behalf of the
all Federal Atlantic shark dealers of this section, the vessel owner may not permit holder must show proof that he
permitted or required to be permitted renew a shark or swordfish limited or she is the permit holder’s agent and
pursuant to § 635.4(g)(2), or a proxy for access permit, issued pursuant to a copy of the HMS permit to NMFS or
each place of business as specified in § 635.4(e) or (f), without submitting a NMFS’ designee at the workshop. For
paragraph (b)(4) of this section, must be valid protected species workshop proxies attending on behalf of a shark
certified by NMFS, or its designee, as certificate with the permit renewal dealer, the proxy must have
having completed an Atlantic shark application. documentation from the shark dealer
identification workshop. (3) A vessel that fishes with longline acknowledging that the proxy is
(2) NMFS, or its designee, will issue or gillnet gear as described in paragraph attending the workshop on behalf of the
an Atlantic shark identification (a) of this section and that has been, or Atlantic shark dealer and must show a
workshop certificate to any person who should be, issued a valid limited access copy of the Atlantic shark dealer permit
completes an Atlantic shark permit pursuant to § 635.4(e) or (f), may
to NMFS or NMFS’ designee at the
identification workshop. not fish unless a valid protected species
workshop.
(3) Dealers who own multiple safe handling, release, and identification
businesses and who attend and workshop certificate has been issued to ■ 13. In § 635.20, paragraph (d)(4) is
successfully complete the workshop both the owner and operator of that added to read as follows:
will be issued a certificate for each place vessel. § 635.20 Size limits.
of business that is permitted to receive (4) An Atlantic shark dealer may not
sharks pursuant to § 635.4(g)(2). receive, purchase, trade, or barter for * * * * *
(4) Dealers may send a proxy to the (d) * * *
Atlantic shark unless a valid Atlantic
Atlantic shark identification workshops. (4) The Atlantic blue and white
shark identification workshop certificate
If a dealer opts to send a proxy, the marlin minimum size limits, specified
is on the premises of each business
dealer must designate a proxy from each in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this
listed under the shark dealer permit. An
place of business covered by the dealer’s section, may be adjusted to sizes
Atlantic shark dealer may not renew a
permit issued pursuant to § 635.4(g)(2). between 117 and 138 inches (297.2 and
Federal dealer permit issued pursuant to
The proxy must be a person who is 350.5 cm) and 70 and 79 inches (177.8
§ 635.4(g)(2) unless a valid Atlantic
currently employed by a place of and 200.7 cm), respectively, to achieve,
shark identification workshop certificate
business covered by the dealer’s permit; but not exceed, the annual Atlantic
has been submitted with permit renewal
is a primary participant in the marlin landing limit specified in
application. If the dealer is not certified,
identification, weighing, and/or first § 635.27(d). Minimum size limit
the dealer must submit a copy of a
receipt of fish as they are offloaded from increases will be based upon a review
proxy certificate for each place of
a vessel; and fills out dealer reports as of landings, the period of time
business listed on the shark dealer
required under § 635.5. Only one remaining in the current fishing year,
permit.
certificate will be issued to each proxy. (5) A vessel owner, operator, shark current and historical landing trends,
If a proxy is no longer employed by a dealer, or proxy for a shark dealer who and any other relevant factors. NMFS
place of business covered by the dealer’s is issued either a protected species will adjust the minimum size limits
permit, the dealer or another proxy must workshop certificate or an Atlantic HMS specified in this section by filing an
be certified as having completed a identification workshop certificate may adjustment with the Office of the
workshop pursuant to this section. At not transfer that certificate to another Federal Register for publication. In no
least one individual from each place of person. case shall the adjustments be effective
business covered by the shark dealer (6) Vessel owners issued a valid less than 14 calendar days after the date
permit must possess a valid Atlantic protected species safe handling, release, of publication. The adjusted minimum
shark identification workshop and identification workshop certificate size limits will remain in effect through
certificate. may request, in the application for the end of the applicable fishing year or
(5) A Federal Atlantic shark dealer permit transfer per § 635.4(l)(2), until otherwise adjusted.
issued or required to be issued a shark additional protected species safe * * * * *
dealer permit pursuant to § 635.4(g)(2) handling, release, and identification ■ 14. In § 635.21, paragraphs (a)(2),
must possess and make available for workshop certificates for additional (a)(4), (b), (c)(1), (c)(2)(ii), (c)(2)(iii),
inspection a valid Atlantic shark vessels that they own. Shark dealers (c)(2)(iv), (c)(2)(v) introductory text,
identification workshop certificate at may request from NMFS additional (e)(1) introductory text, (e)(1)(i),
each place of business. A copy of this Atlantic shark identification workshop (e)(1)(ii), (e)(1)(iii), (e)(2)(i), (e)(2)(ii),
and (e)(4)(iii) are revised; and (1) If a vessel issued or required to be and rod and reel (including
paragraphs (d)(4), (e)(2)(iii), and (f) are issued a permit under this part is in a downriggers), bandit gear, and handline
added to read as follows: closed area designated under paragraph (for all tunas).
(c)(2) of this section and has bottom (iii) General. Rod and reel (including
§ 635.21 Gear operation and deployment
longline gear onboard, the vessel may downriggers), handline, harpoon, and
restrictions.
not, at any time, possess or land any bandit gear.
(a) * * * pelagic species listed in Table 2 of
(2) If a billfish is caught by a hook and * * * * *
Appendix A to this part in excess of 5 (2) * * *
not retained, the fish must be released
percent, by weight, of the total weight (i) Only persons who have been
by cutting the line near the hook or by
of pelagic and demersal species issued a valid HMS Angling or valid
using a dehooking device, in either case
possessed or landed, that are listed in Charter/Headboat permit, or who have
without removing the fish from the
Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix A to this been issued a valid Atlantic Tunas
water.
part. General category permit and are
* * * * * (2) * * * participating in a tournament as
(4) Area closures for all Atlantic HMS (ii) In the Charleston Bump closed provided in § 635.4(c) of this part, may
fishing gears. (i) No person may fish for, area from February 1 through April 30 possess a blue marlin or white marlin
catch, possess, or retain any Atlantic each calendar year; in, or take a blue marlin or a white
highly migratory species or anchor a (iii) In the East Florida Coast closed marlin from, its management unit. Blue
fishing vessel that has been issued a area at any time; marlin or white marlin may only be
permit or is required to be permitted (iv) In the Desoto Canyon closed area harvested by rod and reel.
under this part, in the areas designated at any time; (ii) Only persons who have been
at § 622.34(d) of this chapter. (v) In the Northeast Distant gear
(ii) From November through April of issued a valid HMS Angling or valid
restricted area at any time, unless Charter/Headboat permit, or who have
each year until June 16, 2010, no vessel
persons onboard the vessel comply with been issued a valid Atlantic Tunas
issued, or required to be issued, a
the following: General category permit and are
permit under this part may fish or
deploy any type of fishing gear in the * * * * * participating in a tournament as
Madison-Swanson closed area or the (d) * * * provided in § 635.4(c) of this part, may
Steamboat Lumps closed area, as (4) If a vessel issued or required to be possess or take a sailfish shoreward of
defined in § 635.2. issued a permit under this part is in a the outer boundary of the Atlantic EEZ.
(iii) From May through October of closed area designated under paragraph Sailfish may only be harvested by rod
each year until June 16, 2010, no vessel (d)(1) of this section and has pelagic and reel.
issued, or required to be issued, a longline gear onboard, the vessel may (iii) After December 31, 2006, persons
permit under this part may fish or not, at any time, possess or land any who have been issued or are required to
deploy any type of fishing gear in the demersal species listed in Table 3 of be issued a permit under this part and
Madison-Swanson or the Steamboat Appendix A to this part in excess of 5 who are participating in a
Lumps closed areas except for surface percent, by weight, of the total weight ‘‘tournament’’, as defined in § 635.2,
trolling, as specified below under of pelagic and demersal species that bestows points, prizes, or awards
paragraph (a)(4)(iv) of this section. possessed or landed, that are listed in for Atlantic billfish must deploy only
(iv) For the purposes of paragraph Tables 2 and 3 of Appendix A to this non-offset circle hooks when using
(a)(4)(iii) of this section, surface trolling part. natural bait or natural bait/artificial lure
is defined as fishing with lines trailing (e) * * * combinations, and may not deploy a J-
behind a vessel which is in constant (1) Atlantic tunas. A person that hook or an offset circle hook in
motion at speeds in excess of four knots fishes for, retains, or possesses an combination with natural bait or a
with a visible wake. Such trolling may Atlantic bluefin tuna may not have on natural bait/artificial lure combination.
not involve the use of down riggers, board a vessel or use on board a vessel * * * * *
wire lines, planers, or similar devices. any primary gear other than those (4) * * *
(b) General. No person may fish for, authorized for the category for which (iii) A person aboard a vessel issued
catch, possess, or retain any Atlantic the Atlantic tunas or HMS permit has or required to be issued a valid directed
HMS with gears other than the primary been issued for such vessel. Primary handgear LAP for Atlantic swordfish
gears specifically authorized in this gears are the gears specifically may not fish for swordfish with any gear
part. Consistent with paragraphs (a)(1) authorized in this section. When fishing other than handgear. A swordfish will
and (a)(2) of this section, secondary for Atlantic tunas other than BFT, be deemed to have been harvested by
gears may be used at boat side to aid primary gear authorized for any Atlantic longline when the fish is on board or
and assist in subduing, or bringing on Tunas permit category may be used, offloaded from a vessel using or having
board a vessel, Atlantic HMS that have except that purse seine gear may be on board longline gear. Vessels that
first been caught or captured using used only on board vessels permitted in have been issued or that are required to
primary gears. For purposes of this part, the Purse Seine category and pelagic have been issued a valid directed or
secondary gears include, but are not longline gear may be used only on board handgear swordfish LAP under this part
limited to, dart harpoons, gaffs, flying vessels issued an Atlantic Tunas and that are utilizing buoy gear may not
gaffs, tail ropes, etc. Secondary gears Longline category tuna permit, a LAP possess or deploy more than 35
may not be used to capture, or attempt other than handgear for swordfish, and floatation devices, and may not deploy
to capture, free-swimming or undersized a LAP for sharks. more than 35 individual buoys gears per
HMS. Except as specified in this (i) Angling. Speargun (for BAYS tunas vessel. Buoy gear must be constructed
paragraph (b), a vessel using or having only), and rod and reel (including and deployed so that the hooks and/or
onboard in the Atlantic Ocean any downriggers)and handline (for all gangions are attached to the vertical
unauthorized gear may not possess an tunas). portion of the mainline. Floatation
Atlantic HMS on board. (ii) Charter/Headboat. Speargun (for devices may be attached to one but not
(c) * * * recreational BAYS tuna fishery only), both ends of the mainline, and no hooks
or gangions may be attached to any listed in Table 1 of Appendix A to this of filing with the Office of the Federal
floatation device or horizontal portion part under prohibited sharks, may be Register.
of the mainline. If more than one retained. The recreational retention * * * * *
floatation device is attached to a buoy limit for sharks applies to any person (f) * * *
gear, no hook or gangion may be who fishes in any manner, except to (3) Pelagic longline vessels fishing in
attached to the mainline between them. persons aboard a vessel that has been the Northeast Distant gear restricted
Individual buoy gears may not be issued an Atlantic shark LAP under area, under the exemption specified at
linked, clipped, or connected together § 635.4. If an Atlantic shark quota is § 635.21(c)(2)(v), may retain all BFT
in any way. Buoy gears must be released closed under § 635.28, the recreational taken incidental to fishing for other
and retrieved by hand. All deployed retention limit for sharks may be species while in that area up to the
buoy gear must have some type of applied to persons aboard a vessel available quota as specified in
monitoring equipment affixed to it issued an Atlantic shark LAP under § 635.27(a), notwithstanding the
including, but not limited to, radar § 635.4, only if that vessel has also been retention limits and target catch
reflectors, beeper devices, lights, or issued an HMS Charter/Headboat permit requirements specified in paragraph
reflective tape. If only reflective tape is issued under § 635.4 and is engaged in (f)(1) of this section. Once the available
affixed, the vessel deploying the buoy a for-hire fishing trip. quota as specified in § 635.27(a) has
gear must possess an operable spotlight * * * * * been attained, the target catch
capable of illuminating deployed ■ 16. In § 635.23, paragraphs (a)(4), requirements specified in paragraph
floatation devices. If a gear monitoring (b)(3), and (f)(3) are revised to read as (f)(1) of this section apply.
device is positively buoyant and rigged follows: * * * * *
to be attached to a fishing gear, it is
■ 17. In § 635.24, paragraphs (a)(1),
included in the 35 floatation device § 635.23 Retention limits for BFT.
(a)(2), (b)(1), and the first sentence in
vessel limit and must be marked * * * * * paragraph (b)(2) are revised; and
appropriately. (a) * * * paragraph (a)(3) is added to read as
* * * * * (4) To provide for maximum follows:
(f) Speargun fishing gear. Speargun utilization of the quota for BFT, NMFS
fishing gear may only be utilized when may increase or decrease the daily § 635.24 Commercial retention limits for
recreational fishing for Atlantic BAYS retention limit of large medium and sharks and swordfish.
tunas and only from vessels issued giant BFT over a range from zero (on * * * * *
either a valid HMS Angling or valid RFDs) to a maximum of three per vessel. (a) * * *
HMS Charter/Headboat permit. Persons Such increase or decrease will be based (1) A person who owns or operates a
fishing for Atlantic BAYS tunas using on the criteria provided under vessel that has been issued a directed
speargun gear, as specified in paragraph § 635.27(a)(8). NMFS will adjust the LAP for shark may retain, possess or
(e)(1) of this section, must be physically daily retention limit specified in land no more than 4,000 lb (1,814 kg)
in the water when the speargun is fired paragraph (a)(2) of this section by filing dw of LCS per trip.
or discharged, and may freedive, use an adjustment with the Office of the (2) A person who owns or operates a
SCUBA, or other underwater breathing Federal Register for publication. In no vessel that has been issued an incidental
devices. Only free-swimming BAYS case shall such adjustment be effective catch LAP for sharks may retain, possess
tunas, not those restricted by fishing less than 3 calendar days after the date or land no more than 5 LCS and 16 SCS
lines or other means, may be taken by of filing with the Office of the Federal and pelagic sharks, combined, per trip.
speargun fishing gear. ‘‘Powerheads’’, as Register, except that previously (3) A person who owns or operates a
defined at § 600.10 of this chapter, or designated RFDs may be waived vessel that has been issued an incidental
any other explosive devices, may not be effective upon closure of the General or directed LAP for sharks may not
used to harvest or fish for BAYS tunas category fishery so that persons aboard retain, possess, land, sell, or purchase a
with speargun fishing gear. vessels permitted in the General prohibited shark, including parts or
■ 15. In § 635.22, paragraphs (b) and (c) category may conduct tag-and-release pieces of prohibited sharks, which are
are revised to read as follows: fishing for BFT under § 635.26. listed in Table 1 of Appendix A to this
(b) * * * part under prohibited sharks.
§ 635.22 Recreational retention limits. (3) Changes to retention limits. To (b) * * *
* * * * * provide for maximum utilization of the (1) Persons aboard a vessel that has
(b) Billfish. No longbill spearfish from quota for BFT over the longest period of been issued an incidental LAP for
the management unit may be taken, time, NMFS may increase or decrease swordfish may retain, possess, or land
retained, or possessed shoreward of the the retention limit for any size class of no more than two swordfish per trip in
outer boundary of the EEZ. BFT, or change a vessel trip limit to an or from the Atlantic Ocean north of 5°
(c) Sharks. One shark from either the angler trip limit and vice versa. Such N. lat.
large coastal, small coastal, or pelagic increase or decrease in retention limit (2) Persons aboard a vessel in the
group may be retained per vessel per will be based on the criteria provided squid trawl fishery that has been issued
trip, subject to the size limits described under § 635.27 (a)(8). The retention an incidental LAP for swordfish may
in § 635.20(e). In addition, one Atlantic limits may be adjusted separately for retain, possess, or land no more than
sharpnose shark and one bonnethead persons aboard a specific vessel type, five swordfish per trip in or from the
shark may be retained per person per such as private vessels, headboats, or Atlantic Ocean north of 5° N. lat. * * *
trip. Regardless of the length of a trip, charter boats. NMFS will adjust the ■ 18. In § 635.27, paragraphs (a)
no more than one Atlantic sharpnose daily retention limit specified in introductory text, (a)(1) introductory
shark and one bonnethead shark per paragraph (b)(2) of this section by filing text, (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(iii), (a)(2), (a)(2)(i),
person may be possessed on board a an adjustment with the Office of the (a)(2)(ii), (a)(2)(iii), (a)(3), (a)(4)(i),
vessel. No prohibited sharks, including Federal Register for publication. In no (a)(4)(iii), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7)(i), (a)(7)(ii),
parts or pieces of prohibited sharks, case shall such adjustment be effective (a)(8), (a)(9), (b)(1) introductory text,
from the management unit, which are less than 3 calendar days after the date (c)(1)(i)(A), (c)(1)(i)(C), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(2)(i),
(c)(2)(iv), and (c)(3) are revised; regarding landings by vessels with an (ii) An amount equal to 52.8 percent
paragraph (a)(7)(iii) is removed; and HMS Charter/Headboat permit that are (86.0 mt) of the large school/small
paragraphs (a)(10) and (d) are added to counted against the baseline General medium BFT Angling category quota
read as follows: category landings quota. The amount of may be caught, retained, possessed, or
large medium and giant BFT that may landed south of 39°18′ N. lat. The
§ 635.27 Quotas. be caught, retained, possessed, landed, remaining quota (76.8 mt) may be
(a) BFT. Consistent with ICCAT or sold under the baseline General caught, retained, possessed or landed
recommendations, NMFS will subtract category landings quota is 47.1 percent north of 39°18′ N. lat.
any allowance for dead discards from (689.8 mt) of the overall baseline annual (iii) An amount equal to 66.7 percent
the fishing year’s total U.S. quota for BFT landings quota, and is apportioned (4.4 mt) of the large medium and giant
BFT that can be caught, and allocate the as follows: BFT Angling category quota may be
remainder to be retained, possessed, or (A) June 1 through August 31 - 50 caught, retained, possessed, or landed
landed by persons and vessels subject to percent (344.9 mt); south of 39°18′ N. lat. The remaining
U.S. jurisdiction. The total landing (B) September 1 through September quota (2.2 mt) may be caught, retained,
quota will be divided among the 30 - 26.5 percent (182.8 mt); possessed or landed north of 39°18′ N.
General, Angling, Harpoon, Purse Seine, (C) October 1 through November 30 - lat.
Longline, Trap, and Reserve categories. 13 percent (89.7 mt); (3) Longline category quota. The total
Consistent with these allocations and (D) December 1 through December 31 amount of large medium and giant BFT
other applicable restrictions of this part, - 5.2 percent (35.9 mt); and
that may be caught incidentally and
BFT may be taken by persons aboard (E) January 1 through January 31 - 5.3
retained, possessed, or landed by
vessels issued Atlantic Tunas permits, percent (36.5 mt).
vessels that possess Longline category
HMS Angling permits, or HMS Charter/ * * * * * Atlantic Tunas permits is 8.1 percent
Headboat permits. The BFT baseline (iii) When the coastwide General (118.6 mt) of the overall U.S. BFT quota.
annual landings quota is 1,464.6 mt, not category fishery has been closed in any
No more than 60.0 percent of the
including an additional annual 25 mt quota period specified under paragraph
Longline category quota may be
allocation provided in paragraph (a)(3) (a)(1)(i) of this section, NMFS will
allocated for landing in the area south
of this section. Allocations of this publish a closure action as specified in
of 31°00′ N. lat. In addition, 25 mt shall
baseline annual landings quota will be § 635.28. The subsequent time-period
be allocated for incidental catch by
made according to the following subquota will automatically open in
percentages: General - 47.1 percent pelagic longline vessels fishing in the
accordance with the dates specified
(689.8 mt); Angling - 19.7 percent (288.6 Northeast Distant gear restricted area as
under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section.
mt), which includes the school BFT (2) Angling category landings quota. specified at § 635.23(f)(3).
held in reserve as described under In accordance with the framework (4) * * *
paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this section; procedures of the HMS FMP, prior to (i) The total amount of large medium
Harpoon - 3.9 percent (57.1 mt); Purse each fishing year or as early as feasible, and giant BFT that may be caught,
Seine - 18.6 percent (272.4 mt); Longline NMFS will establish the Angling retained, possessed, or landed by
- 8.1 percent (118.6 mt), which does not category daily retention limits. The total vessels that possess Purse Seine
include the additional annual 25 mt amount of BFT that may be caught, category Atlantic Tunas permits is 18.6
allocation provided in paragraph (a)(3) retained, possessed, and landed by percent (272.4 mt) of the overall U.S.
of this section; and Trap - 0.1 percent anglers aboard vessels for which an BFT baseline landings quota. The
(1.5 mt). The remaining 2.5 percent HMS Angling permit or an HMS directed purse seine fishery for BFT
(36.6 mt) of the baseline annual Charter/Headboat permit has been commences on July 15 of each year
landings quota will be held in reserve issued is 19.7 percent (288.6 mt) of the unless NMFS takes action to delay the
for inseason or annual adjustments overall annual U.S. BFT baseline season start date. Based on cumulative
based on the criteria in paragraph (a)(8) landings quota. No more than 2.3 and projected landings in other
of this section. NMFS may apportion a percent (6.6 mt) of the annual Angling commercial fishing categories, and the
landings quota allocated to any category category landings quota may be large potential for gear conflicts on the fishing
to specified fishing periods or to medium or giant BFT. In addition, over grounds or market impacts due to
geographic areas and will make annual each 4–consecutive-year period (starting oversupply, NMFS may delay the BFT
adjustments to quotas, as specified in in 1999, inclusive), no more than 8 purse seine season start date from July
paragraph (a)(10) of this section. BFT percent of the overall U.S. BFT baseline 15 to no later than August 15 by filing
landings quotas are specified in whole landings quota, inclusive of the an adjustment with the Office of the
weight. allocation specified in paragraph (a)(3) Federal Register for publication. In no
(1) General category landings quota. of this section, may be school BFT. The case shall such adjustment be filed less
In accordance with the framework Angling category landings quota than 14 calendar days prior to July 15.
procedures of the HMS FMP, NMFS will includes the amount of school BFT held * * * * *
publish in the Federal Register, prior to in reserve under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of (iii) On or about May 1 of each year,
the beginning of each fishing year or as this section. The size class subquotas for NMFS will make equal allocations of
early as feasible, the General category BFT are further subdivided as follows: the available size classes of BFT among
effort control schedule, including daily (i) Under paragraph (a)(7)(ii) of this purse seine vessel permit holders so
retention limits and restricted-fishing section, 52.8 percent (51.3 mt) of the requesting, adjusted as necessary to
days. school BFT Angling category landings account for underharvest or overharvest
(i) Catches from vessels for which quota, after adjustment for the school by each participating vessel or the
General category Atlantic Tunas permits BFT quota held in reserve, may be vessel it replaces from the previous
have been issued and certain catches caught, retained, possessed, or landed fishing year, consistent with paragraph
from vessels for which an HMS Charter/ south of 39°18′ N. lat. The remaining (a)(10)(i) of this section. Such
Headboat permit has been issued are quota (45.9 mt) may be caught, retained, allocations are freely transferable, in
counted against the General category possessed or landed north of 39°18′ N. whole or in part, among vessels that
landings quota. See § 635.23(c)(3) lat. have Purse Seine category Atlantic
Tunas permits. Any purse seine vessel Before making any adjustment, NMFS NMFS shall subtract the overharvest
permit holder intending to land bluefin will consider the following criteria and from, or add the underharvest to, that
tuna under an allocation transferred other relevant factors: vessel’s allocation for the following
from another purse seine vessel permit (i) The usefulness of information fishing year. Purse seine vessel
holder must provide written notice of obtained from catches in the particular adjustments would take place provided
such intent to NMFS, at an address category for biological sampling and that the underharvest being carried
designated by NMFS, 3 days before monitoring of the status of the stock. forward does not exceed 100 percent of
landing any such bluefin tuna. Such (ii) The catches of the particular the purse seine category baseline
notification must include the transfer category quota to date and the allocation. Any of the unharvested
date, amount (in metric tons) likelihood of closure of that segment of quota amounts being carried forward, as
transferred, and the permit numbers of the fishery if no adjustment is made. described in this paragraph, that exceed
vessels involved in the transfer. Trip or (iii) The projected ability of the the 100 percent limit will be transferred
seasonal catch limits otherwise vessels fishing under the particular to the reserve, or another domestic
applicable under § 635.23(e) are not category quota to harvest the additional quota category provided the transfers
affected by transfers of bluefin tuna amount of BFT before the end of the are consistent with paragraph (a)(8) of
allocation. Purse seine vessel permit fishing year. this section.
holders who, through landing and/or (iv) The estimated amounts by which
(ii) NMFS may allocate any quota
transfer, have no remaining bluefin tuna quotas for other gear categories of the
remaining in the reserve at the end of a
allocation may not use their permitted fishery might be exceeded.
(v) Effects of the adjustment on BFT fishing year to any fishing category,
vessels in any fishery in which Atlantic provided such allocation is consistent
bluefin tuna might be caught, regardless rebuilding and overfishing.
(vi) Effects of the adjustment on with the criteria specified in paragraph
of whether bluefin tuna are retained. (a)(8) of this section.
accomplishing the objectives of the
* * * * * fishery management plan. (iii) Regardless of the estimated
(5) Harpoon category quota. The total (vii) Variations in seasonal landings in any year, NMFS may adjust
amount of large medium and giant BFT distribution, abundance, or migration the annual school BFT quota to ensure
that may be caught, retained, possessed, patterns of BFT. that the average take of school BFT over
landed, or sold by vessels that possess (viii) Effects of catch rates in one area each 4–consecutive-year period
Harpoon category Atlantic Tunas precluding vessels in another area from beginning in the 1999 fishing year does
permits is 3.9 percent (57.1 mt) of the having a reasonable opportunity to not exceed 8 percent by weight of the
overall U.S. BFT baseline quota. The harvest a portion of the category’s quota. total U.S. BFT baseline quota for that
Harpoon category fishery closes on (ix) Review of dealer reports, daily period.
November 15 each year. landing trends, and the availability of (iv) If NMFS determines that the
(6) Trap category quota. The total the BFT on the fishing grounds. annual dead discard allowance has been
amount of large medium and giant BFT (9) Inseason adjustments. Within a exceeded in one fishing year, NMFS
that may be caught, retained, possessed, fishing year, NMFS may transfer quotas shall subtract the amount in excess of
or landed by vessels that possess Trap among categories or, as appropriate, the allowance from the amount of BFT
category Atlantic Tunas permits is 0.1 subcategories, based on the criteria in that can be landed in the subsequent
percent (1.5 mt) of the overall U.S. BFT paragraph (a)(8) of this section. NMFS fishing year by those categories
baseline quota. may transfer inseason any portion of the accounting for the dead discards. If
(7) * * * remaining quota of a fishing category to NMFS determines that the annual dead
(i) The total amount of BFT that is any other fishing category or to the discard allowance has not been reached,
held in reserve for inseason or annual reserve as specified in paragraph (a)(7) NMFS may add one-half of the
adjustments and fishery-independent of this section. remainder to the amount of BFT that
research using quotas or subquotas is (10) Annual adjustments. (i) If NMFS can be landed in the subsequent fishing
2.5 percent (36.6 mt) of the overall U.S. determines, based on landings statistics year. Such amount may be allocated to
BFT baseline quota. Consistent with and other available information, that a individual fishing categories or to the
paragraph (a)(8) of this section, NMFS BFT quota for any category or, as reserve.
may allocate any portion of this reserve appropriate, subcategory has been
for inseason or annual adjustments to exceeded or has not been reached, with (v) NMFS will file any annual
any category quota in the fishery. the exception of the Purse Seine adjustment with the Office of the
(ii) The total amount of school BFT category, NMFS shall subtract the Federal Register for publication and
that is held in reserve for inseason or overharvest from, or add the specify the basis for any quota
annual adjustments and fishery- underharvest to, that quota category for reductions or increases made pursuant
independent research is 18.5 percent the following fishing year. These to this paragraph (a)(10).
(22.0 mt) of the total school BFT quota adjustments would be made provided (b) * * *
for the Angling category as described that the underharvest being carried (1) Commercial quotas. The
under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. forward does not exceed 100 percent of commercial quotas for sharks specified
This is in addition to the amounts each category’s baseline allocation in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (b)(1)(vi)
specified in paragraph (a)(7)(i) of this specified in paragraph (a) of this of this section apply to sharks harvested
section. Consistent with paragraph (a)(8) section, and the total of the adjusted from the management unit, regardless of
of this section, NMFS may allocate any category quotas and the reserve are where harvested. Commercial quotas are
portion of the school BFT held in consistent with ICCAT specified for each of the management
reserve for inseason or annual recommendations. For the Purse Seine groups of large coastal sharks, small
adjustments to the Angling category. category, if NMFS determines, based on coastal sharks, and pelagic sharks. No
(8) Determination criteria. NMFS will landings statistics and other available prohibited sharks, including parts or
file with the Office of the Federal information, that a purse seine vessel’s pieces of prohibited sharks, which are
Register for publication notification of allocation, as adjusted, has been listed under heading D of Table 1 of
any inseason or annual adjustments. exceeded or has not been reached, Appendix A to this part, may be
retained except as authorized under Register for publication any adjustment landings of Atlantic blue and white
§ 635.32. to the annual quota necessary to meet marlin were below the annual landings
* * * * * the objectives of the Fishery limit for a given fishing year, as
(c) * * * Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, established in paragraph (d)(1) of this
(1) * * * Swordfish and Sharks. NMFS will section, NMFS may add any
(i) * * * provide an opportunity for public underharvest, or portion thereof, to the
(A) A swordfish from the North comment. landings limit for the following fishing
Atlantic stock caught prior to the (ii) If consistent with applicable year. Such adjustments to the annual
directed fishery closure by a vessel that ICCAT recommendations, total landings recreational marlin landings limit, as
possesses a directed or handgear above or below the specific North specified in paragraph (d)(1) of this
swordfish limited access permit will be Atlantic or South Atlantic swordfish section, if necessary, will be filed with
counted against the directed fishery annual quota will be subtracted from, or the Office of the Federal Register for
quota. The annual fishery quota, not added to, the following year’s quota for publication prior to the start of the next
adjusted for over- or underharvests, is that area. As necessary to meet fishing year or as early as possible.
2,937.6 mt dw for each fishing year management objectives, such carryover (3) When the annual marlin landings
beginning June 1, 2004. The annual adjustments may be apportioned to limit specified in paragraph (d)(1) or, if
quota is subdivided into two equal fishing categories and/or to the reserve. adjusted, as specified in paragraph
semiannual quotas of 1,468.8 mt dw: Any adjustments to the 12-month (d)(2) of this section is reached or
one for June 1 through November 30, directed fishery quota will be projected to be reached, based upon a
and the other for December 1 through apportioned equally between the two review of landings, the period of time
May 31 of the following year. After semiannual fishing seasons. NMFS will remaining in the current fishing year,
December 31, 2007, the annual quota is file with the Office of the Federal current and historical landings trends,
subdivided into two equal semiannual Register for publication any adjustment and any other relevant factors, NMFS
quotas: one for January 1 through June or apportionment made under this will file for publication with the Office
30, and the other for July 1 through paragraph (c)(3)(ii). of the Federal Register an action
December 31. (iii) The dressed weight equivalent of restricting fishing for Atlantic blue and
the amount by which dead discards white marlin to catch-and-release
* * * * * exceed the allowance specified at
(C) All swordfish discarded dead from fishing only. In no case shall such
paragraph (c)(1)(i)(C) of this section will adjustment be effective less than 14
U.S. fishing vessels, regardless of
be subtracted from the landings quota in calendar days after the date of
whether such vessels are permitted
the following fishing year or from the publication. From the effective date and
under this part, shall be counted against reserve category. NMFS will file with
the annual directed fishing quota. time of such action until additional
the Office of the Federal Register for
* * * * * landings become available, no blue or
publication any adjustment made under
(ii) South Atlantic swordfish. The white marlin from the management unit
this paragraph (c)(3)(iii).
annual directed fishery quota for the (d) Atlantic blue and white marlin. (1) may be taken, retained, or possessed.
South Atlantic swordfish stock for the Effective January 1, 2007, and consistent ■ 19. In § 635.28, paragraphs (a)(1) and
2005 fishing year is 75.2 mt dw. For the with ICCAT recommendations and (a)(3) are revised to read as follows:
2006 fishing year and thereafter, the domestic management objectives, NMFS § 635.28 Closures.
annual directed fishery quota for south will establish the annual landings limit
Atlantic swordfish is 90.2 mt dw. The of Atlantic blue and white marlin to be (a) * * *
entire quota for the South Atlantic taken, retained, or possessed by persons (1) When a BFT quota, other than the
swordfish stock is reserved for vessels and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Purse Seine category quota specified in
with pelagic longline gear onboard and For the year 2007 and thereafter, unless § 635.27(a)(4), is reached, or is projected
that possess a directed fishery permit for adjusted under paragraph (d)(2) of this to be reached, NMFS will file a closure
swordfish. No person may retain section or by ICCAT recommendation, notice with the Office of the Federal
swordfish caught incidental to other this annual landings limit is 250 Register for publication. On and after
fishing activities or with other fishing Atlantic blue and white marlin, the effective date and time of such
gear in the Atlantic Ocean south of 5 combined. Should the U.S. recreational action, for the remainder of the fishing
degrees North latitude. Atlantic marlin landing limit be year or for a specified period as
(2) * * * adjusted by an ICCAT recommendation, indicated in the notice, fishing for,
(i) NMFS may adjust the July 1 NMFS will file a notice identifying the retaining, possessing, or landing BFT
through December 31 semiannual new landing limit with the Office of the under that quota is prohibited until the
directed fishery quota or, as applicable, Federal Register for publication prior to opening of the subsequent quota period
the reserve category, to reflect actual the start of the next fishing year or as or until such date as specified in the
directed fishery and incidental fishing early as possible. notice.
category catches during the January 1 (2) Consistent with ICCAT * * * * *
through June 30 semiannual period. recommendations and domestic (3) If NMFS determines that variations
* * * * * management objectives, and based on in seasonal distribution, abundance, or
(iv) NMFS will file with the Office of landings statistics and other information migration patterns of BFT, or the catch
the Federal Register for publication any as appropriate, if NMFS determines that rate in one area, precludes participants
inseason swordfish quota adjustment aggregate landings of Atlantic blue and in another area from a reasonable
and its apportionment to fishing white marlin exceeded the annual opportunity to harvest any allocated
categories or to the reserve made under landings limit for a given fishing year, domestic category quota, as stated in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section. as established in paragraph (d)(1) of this § 635.27(a), NMFS may close all or part
(3) Annual adjustments. (i) Except for section, NMFS will subtract any of the fishery under that category.
the carryover provisions of paragraphs overharvest from the landings limit for NMFS may reopen the fishery at a later
(c)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section, NMFS the following fishing year. Additionally, date if NMFS determines that
will file with the Office of the Federal if NMFS determines that aggregate reasonable fishing opportunities are
available, e.g., BFT have migrated into quotas for BFT, shark and swordfish, as (e)(11), (e)(12), and (e)(15) are revised;
the area or weather is conducive for specified in § 635.27; the marlin landing and paragraphs (a)(48) through (a)(53),
fishing. In determining the need for any limit, as specified in § 635.27(d); and (b)(30) through (b)(35), (c)(7), (c)(8),
such interim closure or area closure, the minimum sizes for Atlantic blue and (d)(14), (e)(16), and (e)(17) are added to
NMFS will also take into consideration white marlin, as specified in § 635.20. read as follows:
the criteria specified in § 635.27(a)(8). (b) In accordance with the framework
procedures in the Highly Migratory § 635.71 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
Species Fishery Management Plan, * * * * *
■ 20. In § 635.30, paragraph (c)(2) is
NMFS may establish or modify for (a) * * *
revised to read as follows: (7) Fail to allow an authorized agent
species or species groups of Atlantic
§ 635.30 Possession at sea and landing. HMS the following management of NMFS to inspect and copy reports
* * * * * measures: maximum sustainable yield and records, as specified in § 635.5(e)
(c) * * * or optimum yield based on the latest and (f) or § 635.32.
(2) A person who owns or operates a stock assessment or updates in the (8) Fail to make available for
vessel that has a valid Federal Atlantic SAFE report; domestic quotas; inspection an Atlantic HMS or its area
commercial shark limited access permit recreational and commercial retention of custody, as specified in § 635.5(e) and
may not fillet a shark at sea. A person limits, including target catch (f).
may eviscerate and remove the head and requirements; size limits; fishing years * * * * *
fins, except for the second dorsal and or fishing seasons; shark fishing regions (19) Utilize secondary gears as
anal fin, but must retain the fins with or regional quotas; species in the specified in § 635.21(b) to capture, or
the dressed carcasses. The second dorsal management unit and the specification attempt to capture, any undersized or
and anal fin must remain on the shark of the species groups to which they free swimming Atlantic HMS, or fail to
until the shark is offloaded. Wet shark belong; species in the prohibited shark release a captured Atlantic HMS in the
fins may not exceed 5 percent of the species group; classification system manner specified in § 635.21(a).
dressed weight of the carcasses on board within shark species groups; permitting * * * * *
a vessel or landed, in accordance with and reporting requirements; workshop (23) Fail to comply with the
the regulations at part 600, subpart N, of requirements; Atlantic tunas Purse restrictions on use of pelagic longline,
this chapter. Seine category cap on bluefin tuna bottom longline, gillnet, buoy gear, or
* * * * * quota; time/area restrictions; allocations speargun gear as specified in
among user groups; gear prohibitions, § 635.21(c), (d), (e)(3), (e)(4), or (f).
■ 21. In § 635.31, paragraph (a)(1) is
modifications, or use restriction; effort * * * * *
revised to read as follows:
restrictions; essential fish habitat; and (37) Fail to report to NMFS, at the
§ 635.31 Restrictions on sale and actions to implement ICCAT number designated by NMFS, the
purchase. recommendations, as appropriate. incidental capture of listed whales with
(a) * * * * * * * * shark gillnet gear as required by § 635.5.
(1) A persons that owns or operates a (d) When considering a framework * * * * *
vessel from which an Atlantic tuna is adjustment to add, change, or modify (41) Fail to immediately notify NMFS
landed or offloaded may sell such time/area closures, NMFS will consider, upon the termination of a chartering
Atlantic tuna only if that vessel has a consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson- arrangement as specified in
valid HMS Charter/Headboat permit, or Stevens Act, and other applicable law, § 635.5(a)(5).
a valid General, Harpoon, Longline, but is not limited to, the following (42) Count chartering arrangement
Purse Seine, or Trap category permit for criteria: any Endangered Species Act catches against quotas other than those
Atlantic tunas issued under this part. related issues, concerns, or defined as the Contracting Party of
However, no person may sell a BFT requirements, including applicable which the chartering foreign entity is a
smaller than the large medium size BiOps; bycatch rates of protected member as specified in § 635.5(a)(5).
class. Also, no large medium or giant species, prohibited HMS, or non-target (43) Fail to submit catch information
BFT taken by a person aboard a vessel species both within the specified or regarding fishing activities conducted
with an Atlantic HMS Charter/Headboat potential closure area(s) and throughout under a chartering arrangement with a
permit fishing in the Gulf of Mexico at the fishery; bycatch rates and post- foreign entity, as specified in
any time, or fishing outside the Gulf of release mortality rates of bycatch § 635.5(a)(5).
Mexico when the fishery under the species associated with different gear (44) Offload charter arrangement
General category has been closed, may types; new or updated landings, catch in ports other than ports of the
be sold (see § 635.23(c)). A persons may bycatch, and fishing effort data; chartering Contracting Party of which
sell Atlantic tunas only to a dealer that evidence or research indicating that the foreign entity is a member or offload
has a valid permit for purchasing changes to fishing gear and/or fishing catch without the direct supervision of
Atlantic tunas issued under this part. A practices can significantly reduce the chartering foreign entity as specified
person may not sell or purchase Atlantic bycatch; social and economic impacts; in § 635.5(a)(5).
tunas harvested with speargun fishing and the practicability of implementing * * * * *
gear. new or modified closures compared to (48) Purchase any HMS that was
* * * * * other bycatch reduction options. If the offloaded from an individual vessel in
species is an ICCAT managed species, excess of the retention limits specified
■ 22. In § 635.34, paragraphs (a) and (b)
NMFS will also consider the overall in §§ 635.23 and 635.24.
are revised; and paragraph (d) is added
effect of the U.S.’s catch on that species (49) Sell any HMS that was offloaded
to read as follows:
before implementing time/area closures. from an individual vessel in excess of

§ 635.34 Adjustment of management ■ 23. In § 635.71, paragraphs (a)(7), the retention limits specified in
measures. (a)(8), (a)(19), (a)(23), (a)(37), (a)(41), §§ 635.23 and 635.24.
(a) NMFS may adjust the catch limits (a)(42), (a)(43), (a)(44), (b)(6), (b)(22), (50) Fish without being certified for
for BFT, as specified in § 635.23; the (c)(1), (c)(6), (d)(10), (d)(11), (e)(10), completion of a NMFS protected species
safe handling, release, and identification Charter/Headboat category, fail to report (16) Possess any HMS, other than
workshop, as required in § 635.8. a billfish, as specified in § 635.5(c)(2) or Atlantic swordfish, harvested with buoy
(51) Fish without having a valid (c)(3). gear § 635.21(e).
protected species workshop certificates (7) Deploy a J-hook or an offset circle (17) Fail to construct, deploy, or
issued to the vessel owner and operator hook in combination with natural bait retrieve buoy gear as specified at
on board the vessel as required in or a natural bait/artificial lure § 635.21(e)(4)(iii).
§ 635.8. combination when participating in a
(52) Falsify a NMFS protected species tournament for, or including, Atlantic ■ 24. In Appendix A to part 635, revise
workshop certificate or a NMFS Atlantic billfish, as specified in § 635.21(e)(2). Table 2 and add Table 3 to read as
shark identification workshop certificate (8) Take, retain, or possess an Atlantic follows:
as specified at § 635.8. blue or white marlin when the fishery Appendix A to Part 635—Species
(53) Fish for, catch, possess, retain, or for these species has been restricted to Tables
land an Atlantic swordfish using, or catch and release fishing only, as
captured on, ‘‘buoy gear’’, as defined at * * * * *
specified in § 635.27(d).
§ 635.2, unless the vessel owner has (d) * * * TABLE 2 OF APPENDIX A TO PART
been issued a swordfish directed limited (10) Retain, possess, sell, or purchase 635—PELAGIC SPECIES
access permit or a swordfish handgear a prohibited shark, including parts or
limited access permit in accordance pieces of prohibited sharks, as specified
with § 635.4(f). under §§ 635.22(c), 635.24(a)(3), and
(b) * * * Albacore tuna, Thunnus alalunga
635.27(b)(1), or fail to disengage any Bigeye tuna, Thunnus obesus
(6) As the owner of a vessel permitted, hooked or entangled prohibited shark Blue shark, Prionace glauca
or required to be permitted, in the with the least harm possible to the Bluefin tuna, Thunnus thynnus
Atlantic HMS Angling or Atlantic HMS animal as specified at § 635.21(d)(3). Dolphin fish, Coryphaena hippurus
Charter/Headboat category, fail to report (11) Receive, purchase, trade, or barter
Oceanic whitetip shark, Carcharhinus longimanus
a BFT, as specified in § 635.5(c)(1) or Porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus
for Atlantic sharks without a valid Shortfin mako shark, Isurus oxyrinchus
(c)(3). Atlantic shark identification workshop Skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis
* * * * * certificate or fail to be certified for Swordfish, Xiphias gladius
(22) As the owner or operator of a completion of a NMFS Atlantic shark Thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus
purse seine vessel, fail to comply with Wahoo, Acanthocybium solandri
identification workshop in violation of Yellowfin tuna, Thunnus albacares
the requirement for possession at sea § 635.8.
and landing of BFT under § 635.30(a). TABLE 3 OF APPENDIX A TO PART
* * * * *
* * * * * (14) Receive, purchase, trade, or barter 635—DEMERSAL SPECIES
(30) Fish for any HMS, other than for Atlantic shark without making
Atlantic BAYS tunas, with speargun available for inspection, at each of the
fishing gear, as specified at § 635.21(f). dealer’s places of business authorized to Atlantic sharpnose shark, Rhizoprionodon
(31) Harvest or fish for BAYS tunas
receive shark, a valid Atlantic shark terraenovae
using speargun gear with powerheads, Black grouper, Mycteroperca bonaci
identification workshop certificate
or any other explosive devices, as Blackfin snapper, Lutjanus buccanella
issued by NMFS in violation of Blacknose shark, Carcharhinus acronotus
specified in § 635.21(f).
(32) Sell, purchase, barter for, or trade § 635.8(b). Blacktip shark, Carcharhinus limbatus
for an Atlantic BAYS tuna harvested (e) * * * Blueline tilefish, Caulolatilus microps
(10) Fish for, catch, possess, retain, or Bonnethead shark, Sphyrna tiburo
with speargun fishing gear, as specified Bull shark, Carcharhinus leucas
at § 635.31(a)(1). land an Atlantic swordfish using, or Cubera snapper, Lutjanus cyanopterus
(33) Fire or discharge speargun gear captured on, ‘‘buoy gear’’ as defined at Dog snapper, Lutjanus jocu
without being physically in the water, § 635.2, unless the vessel owner has Finetooth shark, Carcharhinus isodon
been issued a swordfish directed limited Gag grouper, Mycteroperca microlepis
as specified at § 635.21(f). Lane snapper, Lutjanus synagris
(34) Use speargun gear to harvest a access permit or a swordfish handgear Lemon shark, Negaprion brevirostris
BAYS tuna restricted by fishing lines or limited access permit in accordance Mangrove snapper, Lutjanus griseus
other means, as specified at § 635.21(f). with § 635.4(f). Marbled grouper, Dermatolepis inermis
(11) As the owner of a vessel Misty grouper, Epinephelus mystacinus
(35) Use speargun gear to fish for Mutton snapper, Lutjanus analis
BAYS tunas from a vessel that does not permitted, or required to be permitted, Nurse shark, Ginglymostoma cirratum
possess either a valid HMS Angling or in the swordfish directed or swordfish Queen snapper, Etelis oculatus
HMS Charter/Headboat permit, as handgear limited access permit category Red grouper, Epinephelus morio
specified at § 635.21(f). and utilizing buoy gear, to possess or Red hind, Epinephelus guttatus
deploy more than 35 individual Red snapper, Lutjanus campechanus
(c) * * * Rock hind, Epinephelus adscensionis
(1) As specified in § 635.21(e)(2), floatation devices, to deploy more than Sand tilefish, Malacanthus plumieri
retain a billfish harvested by gear other 35 individual buoy gears per vessel, or Sandbar shark, Carcharhinus plumbeus
than rod and reel, or retain a billfish on to deploy buoy gear without affixed Schoolmaster snapper, Lutjanus apodus
monitoring equipment, as specified at Silk snapper, Lutjanus vivanus
board a vessel unless that vessel has Snowy grouper, Epinephelus niveatus
been issued an Atlantic HMS Angling or § 635.21(e)(4)(iii). Speckled hind, Epinephelus drummondhayi
Charter/Headboat permit or has been (12) Fail to mark each buoy gear as Spinner shark, Carcharhinus brevipinna
issued an Atlantic Tunas General required at § 635.6(c)(1). Tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvieri
category permit and is participating in Tilefish, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps
* * * * * Vermilion snapper, Rhomboplites aurorubens
a tournament in compliance with (15) As the owner of a vessel
Warsaw grouper, Epinephelus nigritus

§ 635.4(c). permitted, or required to be permitted, Yellowedge grouper, Epinephelus flavolimbatus
* * * * * in the Atlantic HMS Angling or Atlantic Yellowfin grouper, Mycteroperca venenosa
(6) As the owner of a vessel permitted, HMS Charter/Headboat category, fail to Yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus
or required to be permitted, in the report a North Atlantic swordfish, as [FR Doc. 06–8304 Filed 9–29–06; 8:45 am]
Atlantic HMS Angling or Atlantic HMS specified in § 635.5(c)(2) or (c)(3). BILLING CODE 3510–22–S

Rule: Fishery conservation and management: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone&#8212; Atlantic blue and white marlin, recreational landings limit; Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish, fishery management plans

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Rule: Fishery conservation and management: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone&#8212; Atlantic blue and white marlin, recreational landings limit; Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish, fishery management plans

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Monday,

50 CFR Parts 300, 600, and 635

closure by a vessel with a directed or iii. Longline and disentanglement gear, a

sector. proportional reductions in northern J-hooks would continue to be permitted

1. Atlantic Highly consisting of one or more floatation

release, and identification workshop * * * * * which swordfish are possessed in excess

before implementing time/area closures. from an individual vessel in excess of

Warsaw grouper, Epinephelus nigritus

Potrebbero piacerti anche

Rule: Fishery conservation and management: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone&amp;#8212; Atlantic blue and white marlin, recreational landings limit; Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish, fishery management plans

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Rule: Fishery conservation and management: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone&amp;#8212; Atlantic blue and white marlin, recreational landings limit; Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish, fishery management plans

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Monday,

50 CFR Parts 300, 600, and 635

closure by a vessel with a directed or iii. Longline and disentanglement gear, a

sector. proportional reductions in northern J-hooks would continue to be permitted

1. Atlantic Highly consisting of one or more floatation

release, and identification workshop * * * * * which swordfish are possessed in excess

before implementing time/area closures. from an individual vessel in excess of

Warsaw grouper, Epinephelus nigritus

Potrebbero piacerti anche

Rule: Fishery conservation and management: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— Atlantic blue and white marlin, recreational landings limit; Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish, fishery management plans

Rule: Fishery conservation and management: Alaska; fisheries of Exclusive Economic Zone— Atlantic blue and white marlin, recreational landings limit; Atlantic tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish, fishery management plans