Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Large Coastal and Small Coastal Atlantic Shark Management Measures, 2648-2673 [2015-00548]
Download as PDF
2648
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
taken by the activity as a whole will
have no more than a negligible impact
on the affected species or stock of
marine mammal(s).
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 218.18 Renewal of Letters of
Authorization.
(a) A Letter of Authorization issued
under §§ 216.106 of this chapter and
218.17 for the activity identified in
§ 218.10(c) will be renewed based upon:
(1) Notification to NMFS that the
activity described in the application
submitted under § 218.18 will be
undertaken and that there will not be a
substantial modification to the
described work, mitigation, or
monitoring undertaken during the
upcoming period of validity;
(2) Timely receipt (by the dates
indicated in these regulations) of the
monitoring reports required under
§ 218.15(b); and
(3) A determination by the NMFS that
the mitigation, monitoring, and
reporting measures required under
§ 218.14 and the LOA issued under
§§ 216.106 of this chapter and 218.17,
were undertaken and will be undertaken
during the upcoming period of validity
of a renewed Letter of Authorization.
(b) If a request for a renewal of an
LOA issued under this § 216.106 of this
chapter and § 218.17 indicates that a
substantial modification, as determined
by NMFS, to the described work,
mitigation or monitoring undertaken
during the upcoming season will occur,
NMFS will provide the public a period
of 30 days for review and comment on
the request. Review and comment on
renewals of LOAs are restricted to:
(1) New cited information and data
indicating that the determinations made
in this document are in need of
reconsideration; and
(2) Proposed changes to the mitigation
and monitoring requirements contained
in these regulations or in the current
LOA.
(c) A notice of issuance or denial of
an LOA renewal will be published in
the Federal Register.
(d) NMFS, in response to new
information and in consultation with
the Navy, may modify the mitigation or
monitoring measures in subsequent
LOAs if doing so creates a reasonable
likelihood of more effectively
accomplishing the goals of mitigation
and monitoring. Below are some of the
possible sources of new data that could
contribute to the decision to modify the
mitigation or monitoring measures:
(1) Results from the Navy’s
monitoring from the previous year
(either from the JLOTS training areas or
other locations).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
(2) Compiled results of Navy-funded
research and development (R&D) studies
(presented pursuant to the ICMP
(§ 218.15(d)).
(3) Results from specific stranding
investigations (either from the JLOTS
training areas or other locations, and
involving coincident mid- or highfrequency active sonar or explosives
training or not involving coincident
use).
(4) Results from the Long Term
Prospective Study.
(5) Results from general marine
mammal and sound research (funded by
the Navy (or otherwise).
§ 218.19 Modifications to Letters of
Authorization.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, no substantive
modification (including withdrawal or
suspension) to the LOA by NMFS,
issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of this
chapter and 218.17 and subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall be made
until after notification and an
opportunity for public comment has
been provided. For purposes of this
paragraph, a renewal of an LOA under
§ 218.18, without modification (except
for the period of validity), is not
considered a substantive modification.
(b) If the Assistant Administrator
determines that an emergency exists
that poses a significant risk to the wellbeing of the species or stocks of marine
mammals specified in § 218.12(c), an
LOA issued pursuant to §§ 216.106 of
this chapter and 218.17 may be
substantively modified without prior
notification and an opportunity for
public comment. Notification will be
published in the Federal Register
within 30 days subsequent to the action.
[FR Doc. 2015–00558 Filed 1–16–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 100825390–5012–02]
RIN 0648–BA17
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species;
Large Coastal and Small Coastal
Atlantic Shark Management Measures
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
This proposed rule would
implement Draft Amendment 6 to the
2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory
Species (HMS) Fishery Management
Plan (FMP). Management measures in
this proposed rulemaking are designed
to respond to the problems facing
Atlantic commercial shark fisheries,
such as commercial landings that
exceed the quotas, declining numbers of
fishing permits since limited access was
implemented, complex regulations,
derby fishing conditions due to small
quotas and short seasons, increasing
numbers of regulatory discards, and
declining market prices. The primary
goal of Amendment 6 to the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 6)
is to implement management measures
for the Atlantic shark fisheries that will
achieve the objectives of increasing
management flexibility to adapt to the
changing needs of the Atlantic shark
fisheries, and achieve optimum yield
while rebuilding overfished shark stocks
and ending overfishing. Specifically,
this action proposes: Adjusting the large
coastal sharks (LCS) retention limit for
shark directed Limited Access Permit
(LAP) holders; creating sub-regional
quotas in the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico regions for LCS and small
coastal sharks (SCS); modifying the LCS
and SCS quota linkages; establishing
total allowable catches (TACs) and
adjusting quotas for non-blacknose SCS
in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
regions based on the results of the 2013
stock assessments for Atlantic
sharpnose and bonnethead sharks; and
modifying upgrading restrictions for
shark permit holders. The proposed
measures could affect commercial shark
fishermen fishing in the Atlantic Ocean
including the Gulf of Mexico and
Caribbean Sea.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before April 3, 2015.
NMFS will hold 4 public hearings on
Draft Amendment 6 and this
implementing proposed rule on
February 17, February 18, February 23,
and February 26, 2015. NMFS will also
hold an operator-assisted public hearing
via conference call and webinar for this
proposed rule on March 25, 2015, from
2 p.m. to 4 p.m. For specific locations,
dates and times see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2010–0188, by any one of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2010SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
0188, click the ‘‘Comment Now’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Margo Schulze-Haugen, NMFS/SF1,
1315 East West Highway, National
Marine Fisheries Service, SSMC3, Silver
Spring, MD 20910.
Instructions: Please include the
identifier NOAA–NMFS–2010–0188
when submitting comments. Comments
sent by any other method, to any other
address or individual, or received after
the close of the comment period, may
not be considered by NMFS. All
comments received are a part of the
public record and generally will be
posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address), confidential
business information, or otherwise
sensitive information submitted
voluntarily by the sender will be
publicly accessible. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous). Attachments to electronic
comments will be accepted in Microsoft
Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats
only.
NMFS will hold 4 public hearings and
1 conference call on this proposed rule.
NMFS will hold public hearings in St.
Petersburg, FL; Melbourne, FL; Belle
Chasse, FL; and Manteo, NC; and via a
public conference call. For specific
locations, dates and times see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
Copies of the supporting documents,
including the draft Environmental
Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact
Review (RIR), Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the
2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP
are available from the HMS Web site at
https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ or
by contacting LeAnn Hogan at 301–427–
8503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
´
LeAnn Hogan, Guy DuBeck, Alexis
Jackson or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by
phone: 301–427–8503, or by fax: 301–
713–1917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic
sharks are managed under the authority
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act
(Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the
authority to issue regulations has been
delegated from the Secretary to the
Assistant Administrator (AA) for
Fisheries, NOAA. On October 2, 2006,
NMFS published in the Federal Register
(71 FR 58058) final regulations, effective
November 1, 2006, implementing the
2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
details management measures for
Atlantic HMS fisheries. The
implementing regulations for the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP and its
amendments are at 50 CFR part 635.
This proposed rule addresses
implementation of Amendment 6.
NMFS began considering management
measures for Amendment 6 in 2010
with the publication of an Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR)
(75 FR 57235; September 10, 2010). The
2010 ANPR solicited public comments
on potential adjustments to regulations
governing the Atlantic shark fisheries to
address several specific issues affecting
the management of those fisheries. In
the ANPR, NMFS discussed that since
management of sharks began in 1993,
there have been many changes to the
regulations and major rules, either
through FMP amendments or regulatory
amendments, to respond to results of
stock assessments, changes in stock
status, and other fishery fluctuations.
Despite modifications to the regulations
and Amendments to the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP to respond to
these issues, the Atlantic shark fisheries
continue to be faced with problems,
such as commercial landings that
exceed the quotas, declining numbers of
fishing permits since limited access was
implemented, complex regulations,
derby fishing conditions due to small
quotas and short seasons, increasing
numbers of regulatory discards, and
declining market prices. Rather than
continuing to react to these issues every
year with a new regulation, or every
other year with a new FMP amendment,
NMFS stated that it wanted the
regulations to be more proactive in
management and explore methods to
establish more flexible regulations that
would consider the changing needs of
the fisheries. More specifically, the
ANPR explored management ideas
related to quota structure, permit
structure, and catch shares. NMFS held
several public meetings regarding the
ANPR and received many comments.
Based on the comments received on
the ANPR, on September 16, 2011,
NMFS published a Notice of Intent
(NOI) (76 FR 57709) to prepare an FMP
Amendment that would consider catch
shares for the Atlantic shark fisheries.
The NOI also established a control date
for eligibility to participate in a catch
share program and announced the
availability of a white paper that
explored potential design elements of a
shark catch share program. NMFS held
several public meetings and received
many comments regarding the NOI.
In addition to the changes in Federal
regulations, while NMFS has been
considering comments on the ANPR and
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2649
the NOI, there have also been changes
in state shark management. Since 2010,
several states have passed legislation
banning the possession, sale, trade, and
distribution of shark fins. In addition,
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission (ASMFC) recently made
changes to the Atlantic state shark
management measures. The ASMFC
Coastal Shark Board made the decision
to amend the Interstate Coastal Shark
FMP to be consistent with NMFS’ recent
changes in Amendment 5a, and they
have expressed their preference for
NMFS to open the LCS management
group in the Atlantic region after July 1
each year. The Shark Board also
approved measures for each Atlantic
state to implement a 12 percent fin-tocarcass ratio for smooth dogfish,
consistent with the 12 percent fin-tocarcass ratio specified in the smooth
dogfish-specific provisions of the Shark
Conservation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111–348)
(the SCA).
In addition to these state measures,
there have been international efforts to
prohibit shark finning at sea, as well as
campaigns targeted at the shark fin soup
markets. All of these efforts, including
the U.S. state shark fin possession bans,
have impacted the market and demand
for shark fins. In addition, NMFS has
seen a steady decline in ex-vessel prices
for shark fins in all regions since 2010.
In April 2014, NMFS released a
Predraft for Amendment 6, providing
NMFS with the opportunity to obtain
additional information and input from
HMS Advisory Panel (AP) members and
HMS Consulting Parties (Atlantic, Gulf,
and Caribbean Fishery Management
Councils, Marine Fisheries
Commissions, U.S. Coast Guard, and
other State and Federal Agency
representatives) on potential
alternatives prior to development of the
formal FMP Amendment and proposed
rule. The Predraft explored potential
management options for the future
management of the Atlantic shark
fisheries, taking into consideration
comments received on the ANPR and
NOI.
Since issuing the ANPR, NOI, and
Predraft, and after reviewing the
comments received, NMFS has
continued to consider various ways to
address recurring issues and provide
managers and fishermen with increased
flexibility, while maintaining
conservation measures. Additionally,
there have continued to be changes in
Federal and state management of the
Atlantic shark fisheries that have
affected the fishery and its
communities. On May, 27 2014, NMFS
published another NOI announcing (1)
its intent to prepare an Environmental
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
2650
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Assessment (EA) instead of an
Environmental Impact Statement, and
(2) that the agency is moving away from
the catch share concept for this
particular Amendment. Thus, the public
should largely be aware of the change in
approach. Most recently, NMFS
published a proposed rule (79 FR 46217;
August 7, 2014) to implement draft
Amendment 9 to the 2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP (Amendment 9), which
considers management measures in the
smoothhound and shark fisheries.
Regulations proposed in this action
would overlap and modify some
regulations proposed in Amendment 9.
Atlantic Sharpnose and Bonnethead
Sharks Stock Assessment
Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead
sharks were both previously assessed in
2007 as part of the Southeast Data,
Assessment, and Review (SEDAR)
process. At that time, the statuses of
both species were determined to be not
overfished, with no overfishing
occurring. These species were assessed
again in 2013 using ‘‘standard’’
assessments as part of SEDAR 34.
Standard assessments generally update
previous benchmark assessments with
additional years of data and do not
allow for major changes; standard
assessments typically can be completed
in approximately a year. On the first day
of the face-to-face assessment workshop
meeting held for both species, the
scientists determined that the genetic
information clearly indicated both
species should be split into a Gulf of
Mexico stock and an Atlantic stock.
However, because the assessments had
been scheduled as standard assessments
as opposed to benchmark assessments,
the assessment process and timing
would not allow the scientists to make
this change. Making such a change
would have required four benchmark
assessments rather than two standard
assessments. It would have also
required additional changes to the
format and structure of the data that had
not been anticipated and allowed for in
the overall SEDAR schedule. Based on
a request from fishery managers to
continue with the standard assessments
at that time, given that the previous
assessments were over 5 years old and
updated scientific advice was needed,
the scientists agreed to continue with
the standard assessment of both species
as single stocks in order to provide
management advice on the potential
status of the stocks.
Based on the results of SEDAR 34,
NMFS decided to split the Atlantic
sharpnose shark species into two
stocks—an Atlantic stock and a Gulf of
Mexico stock—and determined, based
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
on the overall data for the species as a
whole, that the status of both stocks is
not overfished and no overfishing is
occurring (79 FR 53024; September 5,
2014). With regards to bonnethead
sharks, NMFS also decided to split this
stock into an Atlantic stock and a Gulf
of Mexico stock, and determined, based
on the overall data for the species as a
whole, that the status of both
bonnethead stocks is unknown (Id.). In
this rulemaking, NMFS considers
implementing total allowable catches
(TAC) and commercial quotas for nonblacknose SCS (which is the
management group that both Atlantic
sharpnose and bonnethead sharks are
managed in) in the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico regions based on the results of
the SEDAR 34 assessment and while
considering the results of the 2007
finetooth stock assessment.
NMFS prepared a draft EA, RIR, and
IRFA to present and analyze anticipated
environmental, social, and economic
impacts of each alternative contained in
this proposed rule. A summary of the
alternatives considered and related
analyses are provided below. The
complete list of alternatives and related
analyses are provided in the draft EA/
RIR/IRFA. A copy of the draft EA/RIR/
IRFA prepared for this proposed rule is
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Permit Stacking for Shark Directed LAP
Holders
NMFS considered permit stacking in
the 2010 ANPR and requested public
comments on this potential change to
the shark permit structure. A permit
stacking system would allow
commercial fishermen with multiple
shark LAPs to use them concurrently on
one vessel, resulting in aggregated, and
thus higher, retention limits.
After analyzing the ecological and
socioeconomic impacts of the permit
stacking alternatives in the shark
fishery, NMFS currently prefers the No
Action alternative (Alternative A1) in
this proposed rule. The No Action
alterative would maintain the current
shark directed LAP structure and would
not implement permit stacking for these
permit holders. Under this preferred
alternative, NMFS would continue to
allow only one directed LAP per vessel
and thus one retention limit. In the
short- and long-term, this preferred
alternative is expected to have neutral
direct ecological impacts on LCS stocks.
Shark fishermen would continue to be
limited by the current retention limit of
36 LCS per trip. By leaving the current
permit structure in place under this
alternative, and because the LCS quotas
are not being modified in this action, it
is likely that the No Action alternative
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would have neutral short- and long-term
ecological impacts to the LCS stocks.
With regards to socioeconomic impacts,
the preferred alternative would result in
potential trip revenues of $1,166 (1,224
lb of meat, 61 lb of fins) per vessel,
assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for
meat and $6.05 for fins. Because current
LCS quotas are being maintained, NMFS
anticipates neutral direct socioeconomic
impacts in the short-term and possibly
minor adverse socioeconomic impacts
in the long-term, because if fishermen
are unable to retain an increased
number of LCS per trip by stacking
permits, the profitability of each trip
could decline over time, due to
declining prices for shark products and
increasing prices for gas, bait and other
associated costs. NMFS believes that
while permit stacking may have
beneficial socioeconomic impacts for
those fishermen that already have
multiple directed shark LAPs or that
could afford to buy additional permits,
permit stacking could possibly
disadvantage those fishermen that are
unable to buy additional permits.
Because the majority of fishermen in the
shark fishery have only one permit (in
the Atlantic region, 130 of the 136 shark
directed permits have different owners;
in the Gulf of Mexico region, 73 of the
83 shark directed permits have different
owners), permit stacking would not
benefit most shark fishermen in the
short-term, and it could possibly lead to
inequity among directed shark LAP
holders. NMFS believes that an increase
in LCS retention limits for all directed
LAP holders, as described in the
Commercial Retention Limits section
below, would have greater
socioeconomic benefits across the entire
shark fishery as a whole. Therefore, after
considering the impacts of the permit
stacking alternatives, NMFS prefers the
No Action alternative to continue to
allow only one directed LAP per vessel
and thus one retention limit in this
proposed rulemaking.
NMFS also analyzed two other permit
stacking alternatives in the Draft EA.
The first, Alternative A2, would allow
fishermen to use a maximum of 2 shark
directed LAPs concurrently on one
vessel, which would result in
aggregated, and thus higher, retention
limits. Under the current LCS retention
limit of 36 LCS, this would mean that
a vessel with 2 stacked permits would
have a LCS retention limit of 72 LCS per
trip. Alternative A3 considers allowing
fishermen to use a maximum of 3 shark
directed LAPs concurrently on one
vessel, which would result in
aggregated, and thus higher, retention
limits. Under the current LCS retention
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
limit of 36 LCS, this would mean that
a vessel with 3 stacked LAPs would
have a LCS retention limit of 108 LCS
per trip. While these alternatives could
result in increased annual revenues for
shark directed LAP holders who
currently own or could buy multiple
LAPs, they are not preferred at this time
because they could possibly lead to
inequity among directed shark LAP
holders. These alternatives would have
beneficial socioeconomic impacts only
for those shark fishermen that can afford
to buy multiple shark permits, and thus
would benefit from a higher retention
limit and higher revenues, whereas
those shark fishermen that cannot afford
to buy a second or third directed shark
permit would be at a disadvantage,
unable to economically benefit from the
higher retention limits. Given the way
directed LAPs are currently held within
the shark fishery, NMFS believes that an
increase in LCS retention limits for all
directed LAP holders, as described in
the Commercial Retention Limits
section below, would have greater
socioeconomic benefits across the entire
directed shark fishery as a whole.
Therefore, after considering the impacts
of the permit stacking alternatives,
NMFS prefers the No Action alternative
to continue to allow only one directed
LAP per vessel and thus one retention
limit in this proposed rulemaking.
Adjusting Commercial Retention Limits
for Atlantic Shark Fisheries
The current retention limit of 36 LCS
other than sandbar sharks was
established in Amendment 2 as part of
the rebuilding plan for sandbar sharks.
As described in Amendment 2, the
retention limit was established by
considering, among other things, how
many sandbar sharks would be
discarded dead from the number of
shark trips that were expected to
interact with sandbar sharks. Over the
past few years, the shark research
fishery, which is the only part of the
shark fisheries that can land and sell
sandbar sharks, has not been catching
the full sandbar research fishery quota.
During the Predraft stage, NMFS
received extensive comments from
commercial fishermen and Atlantic
HMS Advisory Panel members to
consider adjusting the retention limits
instead of allowing commercial
fishermen to land sandbar sharks
outside of the Atlantic shark research
fishery. Thus, NMFS is considering
adjusting the commercial LCS retention
limit for shark directed LAP holders
based on public comment.
The preferred alternative (Alternative
B2) would increase the retention limit
for LCS in the Atlantic and Gulf of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
Mexico regions from 36 to a maximum
of 55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per
trip and reduce the sandbar shark
research fishery quota to 75.7 mt dw
(166,826 lb dw). To determine the
impacts of this alternative, NMFS used
the same methodology used in
Amendment 2 to calculate how many
sandbar sharks could potentially be
discarded dead by vessels harvesting the
55 LCS other than sandbar shark
retention limit. Because harvesting
additional LCS per trip could result in
additional sandbar sharks being
discarded dead, this additional
mortality would be counted against the
unharvested sandbar shark research
fishery quota, and NMFS would reduce
the sandbar shark research fishery quota
accordingly. Thus overall, NMFS does
not expect the mortality of sandbar
sharks to increase as a result of the
increased retention limit under this
alternative. Since the sandbar shark
research fishery quota was previously
analyzed in Amendment 2, and would
be reduced from 116.6 to 75.7 mt dw in
order to account for increased discards
under a retention limit of 55 LCS per
trip, this alternative would have shortand long-term neutral ecological
impacts on sandbar sharks. In addition,
the retention limit increase under this
preferred alternative would result in
neutral direct and indirect ecological
impacts to the different LCS
management groups and species,
because the quotas for the different LCS
management groups and species are not
being modified in this rulemaking and
fishermen would continue to be limited
by the total amount of LCS that could
be harvested, as well as by seasonal
closures once 80 percent of the quota is
reached.
With regards to socioeconomic
impacts, this new retention limit would
result in potential total trip revenues of
$1,781 (1,870 lb of meat, 94 lb of fins),
assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for
meat and $6.05 for fins. The preferred
alternative would have short- and longterm direct and indirect minor
beneficial socioeconomic impacts since
shark directed permit holders could
land more sharks per trip when
compared to the current retention limit
of 36 LCS per trip. The higher retention
limit is likely to make each trip more
profitable for fishermen, as well as more
efficient, if they decide to take fewer
trips, and in turn save money on fuel,
bait, and other associated costs.
NMFS also analyzed three other
retention limit alternatives that are not
preferred at this time. The No Action
alternative (Alternative B1) would
maintain the current commercial LCS
retention limit for directed permit
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2651
holders. While this would have shortand long-term neutral ecological
impacts on LCS fisheries, this option
denies commercial shark fishermen
additional opportunities to harvest LCS
within their current quotas. Due to
limited resources available to fund
observed trips, the sandbar quota in the
research fishery has not been fully
harvested in recent years (e.g., 35
percent of the available sandbar shark
quota was landed in 2012). As such,
NMFS believes that it is appropriate to
reconsider the LCS retention limit to
ensure commercial fishermen have an
opportunity to harvest the available
various LCS management group quotas
in an efficient manner. Another
alternative, Alternative B3, would
increase the LCS retention limit to a
maximum of 72 LCS other than sandbar
sharks per trip and reduce the Atlantic
shark research fishery quota to 63.0 mt
dw (138,937 lb dw) for sandbar sharks.
The increased retention limit to 72 LCS
other than sandbar sharks per trip could
result in 2,448 lb dw of LCS per trip.
While increasing the retention limit
could result in more efficient and
profitable shark directed trips, this
increased retention limit is closer to the
historical retention limit of 4,000 lb dw
and could cause fishermen to re-enter
the fishery because of the higher
retention limit. If this occurs, these
fishermen may not have fished under
the non-sandbar LCS regulations and
might not be able to avoid catching
sandbar sharks while fishing for the
other LCS species, which could lead to
increased discards and potential adverse
impacts to sandbar sharks. Also, if
fishermen increase the number of hooks
per set substantially in order to catch
the increased retention limit, they may
discard additional dead sharks as a
result. This is more likely under this
alternative than under Alternative B2,
given the larger difference in retention
limits, but, as would also be the case for
Alternative B2, it would likely only
happen in the short term as fishermen
modify their fishing practices to the
adjusted retention limit. Under
Alternative B3, the new sandbar shark
quota could result in average annual lost
revenue of $112,508 for those fishermen
participating in the shark research
fishery, but the income could be
recouped by the increased retention
limit outside the shark research fishery.
Finally, the last alternative B4,
considered increasing the LCS retention
limit to a maximum of 108 LCS other
than sandbar sharks per trip and
reducing the Atlantic shark research
fishery quota to 36.2 mt dw (79,878 lb
dw) for sandbar sharks. This alternative
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
2652
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
would allow shark directed permit
holders to retain three times as many
LCS per trip as the current retention
limit. This retention limit would result
in potential trip revenues of $3,498
(3,672 lb of meat, 184 lb of fins) per
vessel, assuming an ex-vessel price of
$0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins, which
is an increase of $2,332 per vessel per
trip compared to the status quo
alternative. While a retention limit of
108 LCS per trip would make each trip
more profitable and potentially require
fishermen to take fewer trips per year,
this large increase in the retention limit
could cause a lot more permit holders
to become active, as described above.
Thus, the profit of individual vessels
could decrease because LCS quotas
could be caught at a faster rate, and the
fishing season could be shortened.
Additionally, in order to increase the
retention limit to 108 LCS per trip, the
sandbar shark research quota would
need to be reduced to an amount below
what is currently being landed in the
shark research fishery, thereby reducing
the ability to carry out research for stock
assessments and having adverse impacts
on fishermen in the shark research
fishery, who would lose quota, and thus
revenue. As such, NMFS does not prefer
this alternative.
Atlantic Regional and Sub-Regional
Quotas
Currently, NMFS manages several
shark species and management group
quotas on a regional basis with quota
linkages in the Atlantic region. NMFS is
proposing to implement sub-regional
quotas for aggregated LCS, hammerhead
sharks, blacknose sharks, and nonblacknose SCS management groups in
the Atlantic region. Implementing subregional quotas would help alleviate
some of the tensions between fishermen
in certain states due to varying
preferences for season opening dates
and differences in regional shark
availability. Additionally, sub-regional
quotas could facilitate greater fishing
accountability for these shark
management groups within sub-regions,
and also provide for extended fishing
seasons in some sub-regions. In order to
implement sub-regional quotas in the
Atlantic region, NMFS is considering a
number of measures, such as
apportioning landings to sub-regions
based on historical landings, adjusting
linkages between certain management
groups within sub-regions, and
establishing commercial quotas and
TACs for non-blacknose SCS based on
results of the recent stock assessment,
SEDAR 34.
NMFS considered several factors
when calculating sub-regional quotas. It
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
is important to consider the potential
impact of early seasonal closures on
historical landings by region over time.
For example, the non-blacknose SCS
and blacknose fisheries closed on
November 2, 2010, September 30, 2013,
and July 28, 2014, thereby reducing
fishing opportunities for fishermen in
the northern Atlantic area in those
years, because sharks tend to be more
available later in the year in the
northern Atlantic area, whereas they
tend to be available year-round in the
southern Atlantic area. Conversely, in
years where NMFS established opening
dates later in the year (e.g., July 15
opening date for Aggregated LCS in
2010 through 2012), fishermen in the
southern Atlantic area may have
reduced fishing opportunities. During
the Predraft stage and at the September
2014 HMS AP meeting, some
constituents also expressed concerns
about how regional differences in how
shark carcasses are dressed may impact
the magnitude of shark landings
reported in the Atlantic Coastal
Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP),
and thus the amount of quota that may
be allocated to each sub-region. ACCSP
dealer reports indicate differences in
how fishermen land sharks. Dealers in
some states report dressed sharks with
carcass gutted, head on, and tail on,
while others report dressed sharks with
carcass gutted, head off, and tails off
(i.e., shark cores). However, observer
data and port agents indicate that sharks
are landed with their heads off
regardless of region. Additionally,
dealers cannot indicate ‘‘heads on’’ in
electronic dealer reporting forms.
Because observer observations suggest
that sharks are landed with ‘‘heads off,’’
and since all types of dressed shark
carcasses are included in landings that
are counted towards the commercial
quotas, NMFS has not adjusted landings
estimates to account for differences in
dressed weight for the sub-regional
quota calculations. Finally, at the
September 2014 HMS AP meeting, AP
members expressed concern about using
latitude and longitude lines associated
with the federal fishing catch areas to
define sub-regions in the Atlantic and
Gulf of Mexico, instead of the state line
between North Carolina and South
Carolina in the Atlantic and the state
line between Mississippi and Alabama
in the Gulf of Mexico because fishermen
in each state wanted to ensure that all
their historical landings would
ultimately contribute to their allotted
sub-regional quota. However, after
taking into consideration the HMS AP’s
comments, NMFS is considering using
the latitude and longitude lines
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
associated with fishing catch areas
rather than state lines. Using the fishing
catch area lines (i.e., latitude and
longitude lines) would provide for more
effective monitoring of quotas and more
accurate reporting, as fishermen are
currently required to report landings by
catch area. NMFS has also determined
that there would be minimal differences
(0–1.9%) in the allocation of quota to
each sub-region whether using state
lines versus latitude and longitude
lines.
Due to the variability in the
aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark
fisheries between 2008 and 2013, and
various impacts of seasonal closures and
changes to regulations and fishery
management groups that did not impact
one region more than another, NMFS
calculated the sub-regional quotas based
on total landings during this time
period.
Unlike the calculations for aggregated
LCS and hammerhead sharks, the data
used to calculate non-blacknose SCS
and blacknose shark quotas would start
after 2010 because SCS fisheries
management changed in 2010 under
Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP, in which NMFS created a
separate blacknose shark quota and
linked the quota to the non-blacknose
SCS quota. NMFS used ACCSP landings
data from 2011 and 2012 to calculate
SCS sub-regional quotas in Alternatives
C2, C3 and C4. These years were used
because they are years where the SCS
fisheries were open year-round and subregional allocations would not be
impacted by early closures; this
approach was supported by some
members of the HMS AP at the
September 2014 meeting.
The two preferred alternatives are
Alternatives C4 and C6. Alternative C4
would apportion the base annual quotas
for the Atlantic LCS and SCS
management groups into northern and
southern sub-regional quotas, with the
boundary between the northern and
southern Atlantic sub-regions drawn
along 34°00′ N. Latitude, based on
historical landings percentages. The
preferred alternative would also
maintain the non-blacknose SCS and
blacknose quota linkages in the
southern Atlantic sub-region, eliminate
the linkage between blacknose and nonblacknose SCS in the northern Atlantic
sub-region, and prohibit the harvest and
landings of blacknose sharks in the
northern Atlantic sub-region. The
preferred alternatives do not consider
removing linkages between all
remaining species and management
groups for several reasons. Removing
linkages between these management
groups would require an adjustment in
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
2653
season. In regards to underharvest of the
overall regional base quota, if the
species or all species in a management
group is not declared to be overfished,
to have overfishing occurring, or to have
an unknown status, NMFS may increase
the following year’s base annual quota,
including regional quota, by an
equivalent amount of the underharvest
up to 50 percent above the base annual
quota. For example, if the northern subregion’s base quota is underharvested
and the southern sub-region’s base
quota is fully harvested, in the following
year the amount underharvested by the
northern sub-region would be equally
distributed between the sub-regions and
added to the northern and southern subregion’s base quotas. If there is
underharvest of the overall regional base
quota and a species’ status is unknown,
overfished, or overfishing is occurring,
NMFS would not carry over the
underharvest to the following year’s
base annual quota.
be split into northern and southern subregional quotas based on landings
percentages, as described under
Alternative C4 in the Draft EA. Subregional quotas for the preferred
alternatives, based on percentages of
landings apportioned to each subregion, are outlined for Atlantic LCS
and SCS in Figure 1. In addition, any
overharvest of the overall regional base
quota would be accounted for in the
next fishing season and would affect the
sub-region(s) that caused the
overharvest. For example, if a northern
sub-region quota was overharvested and
that caused the overall regional base
quota to be exceeded, then the amount
overharvested by the northern subregion would be deducted from the
northern sub-region’s base quota and
not the southern sub-region’s base
quota, the following fishing season.
However, if a sub-region’s quota is
overharvested but the overall regional
quota is not exceeded, then no
overharvest would be deducted from
either sub-region the following fishing
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Preferred Alternative C4 would likely
result in direct and indirect short- and
long-term neutral ecological impacts
across the Atlantic region. The preferred
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
EP20JA15.000
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
quotas in order to account for potential
interactions and mortalities, and could
result in an increase in regulatory
discards. Additionally, there are specific
reasons for maintaining linkages, as
described in the FMP amendments that
established them. For example, as
described in Amendment 5a, the link
between the aggregated LCS and
hammerhead shark management groups
was established to end overfishing and
rebuild overfished stocks. To date, the
closure of these management groups in
the Atlantic region has been the result
of harvesting the aggregated LCS quota.
As described in Amendment 3 and 5a
for the link between non-blacknose SCS
and blacknose sharks, the linking of
quotas of species that are often caught
together on the same set or trip can
prevent incidental catch of sharks in a
closed fishery as bycatch in other
directed shark fisheries, possibly
resulting in mortality and negating some
of the conservation benefit of quota
closures. The non-blacknose SCS quota
preferred under this alternative would
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2654
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
sub-regional quotas would have no
impact on the current level of fishing
pressure, catch rates or distribution of
fishing effort, but instead represent an
administrative change in how quotas are
monitored throughout the Atlantic
region. Because sub-regional quotas are
estimated from historical landings, and
thus based on typical fishing activity
within sub-regions, there would be no
expected ecological differences in how
fishermen from the various Atlantic
states interact with LCS and SCS.
Differences between sub-regions in
whether linkages were maintained,
however, would have varying ecological
impacts. In the northern Atlantic subregion, due to difficulties associated
with managing a small quota of 0.8 mt
dw, harvest of blacknose sharks would
be prohibited. Prohibiting harvest of
blacknose in the northern Atlantic subregion, would reduce the likelihood of
overharvesting blacknose sharks by
quickly exceeding the quota, and
eliminate the need to monitor a small
quota. However, in the southern
Atlantic sub-region, no changes would
be made in the existing quota linkages
between blacknose and non-blacknose
SCS, so, neutral ecological impacts on
SCS would be expected, since current
conditions would be maintained.
Across the entire Atlantic region,
preferred alternative C4 would likely
result in both direct short- and longterm moderate beneficial socioeconomic
impacts. Removing quota linkages in the
northern Atlantic region, in
combination with apportioning the
Atlantic regional quota at 34°00′ N. Lat.,
would allow fishermen to maximize
their fishing effort, and thereby
maximize revenue, during periods when
sharks migrate into local waters or when
regional time/area closures are not in
place. Removing quota linkages within
the northern Atlantic sub-region would
have beneficial impacts, as increased
revenues from increased landings would
continue to accrue with each fishing
year. Active fishermen in the northern
Atlantic sub-region would be able to
continue fishing for non-blacknose SCS
without the fishing activities in the
southern Atlantic sub-region, where the
majority of blacknose sharks are landed,
impacting the timing of the nonblacknose SCS fishery closure.
Economic advantages associated with
removing quota linkages, allowing the
northern Atlantic sub-region to land a
larger number of non-blacknose SCS,
would outweigh the income lost from
prohibiting landings of blacknose sharks
($1,750).
The other preferred alternative,
Alternative C6, would establish an
Atlantic non-blacknose SCS TAC of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
401.3 mt dw and maintain the 2014 base
annual commercial quota of 176.1 mt
dw (388,222 lb dw). For this alternative,
NMFS used the current Atlantic nonblacknose SCS commercial base annual
quota of 176.1 mt dw to determine the
new Atlantic TAC for this management
group. The proposed TAC is calculated
by summing the sources of mortality for
Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and
finetooth sharks (recreational landings,
commercial discards, which includes
estimates of shrimp trawl discards, and
research set-aside mortality) from the
Atlantic region and adding the current
commercial base annual quota (176.1 mt
dw). The proposed Atlantic nonblacknose SCS TAC and commercial
quota takes into account all sources of
mortality for Atlantic sharpnose,
bonnethead, and finetooth sharks and
maintains the 2014 commercial base
annual quota. In addition, no
underharvest of the non-blacknose SCS
quota in the Atlantic region would be
carried forward to the next fishing
season because the status of the
bonnethead shark stock within the nonblacknose SCS management group is
‘‘unknown’’. Thus, because this nonblacknose SCS TAC and commercial
quota takes into account all sources of
mortality for both species, keeps fishing
mortality capped at current levels, does
not increase interactions with blacknose
sharks, and accounts for the unknown
status of Atlantic bonnethead sharks,
NMFS believes that Alternative C6
would have direct and indirect shortand long-term neutral ecological
impacts to the Atlantic non-blacknose
SCS.
With regards to socioeconomic
impacts of preferred Alternative C6,
because this alternative would maintain
the non-blacknose SCS commercial
quota, it is likely to have short-term
neutral socioeconomic impacts. Recent
non-blacknose SCS landings have been
below 176.1, thus, this commercial
quota could allow for increased
landings and additional revenue if the
entire quota is caught, which could have
beneficial socioeconomic impacts.
However, since the proposed
commercial quota of 176.1 mt dw would
not be adjusted for underharvests due to
the unknown status of bonnethead
sharks, the fishermen participating in
this fishery would be capped at a lower
quota than is possible in the current
non-blacknose SCS fisheries if there is
underharvest, potentially leading to
long-term minor adverse socioeconomic
impacts. NMFS does not expect fishing
effort to dramatically increase for nonblacknose SCS in the southern region of
the Atlantic, since this fishery would
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
continue to be limited by blacknose
shark landings and the linkage between
these two groups. Preferred Alternative
C6 would maintain fishing mortality at
current levels and would not have
unnecessary adverse socioeconomic
impacts.
Cumulatively, Alternatives C4 and C6
would have positive impacts on the
current state of shark fisheries in the
Atlantic Region. Implementing the
northern and southern sub-regional
quotas proposed in Alternative C4
would allow fishermen to maximize
their fishing effort during periods when
sharks migrate into local waters or when
regional time/area closures are not in
effect. Additionally, Alternative C4
would provide increased flexibility in
the application of shark management
measures throughout the Atlantic
region, without having any adverse
economic or ecological consequences.
The non-blacknose SCS commercial
quota under preferred Alternative C6
would continue to allow fishermen to
land these species at current levels,
while maintaining the Atlantic
sharpnose and bonnethead stocks at
sustainable levels. It more accurately
reflects the status of Atlantic sharpnose
and bonnethead sharks and considers
the sources of mortality for all three
non-blacknose SCS. Therefore, because
of the neutral ecological impacts
expected to shark species as well as
non-target, incidental species and
bycatch, and the moderately beneficial
socioeconomic impacts expected by
these combined measures, NMFS
prefers these alternatives at this time.
NMFS also analyzed five other
alternatives related to Atlantic subregional quotas that are not preferred at
this time. Alternative C1, the No Action
alternative, would not change the
current commercial quota management
in the Atlantic shark fisheries.
Alternative C2 would apportion the
Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and
SCS along 33°00′ N. Latitude
(approximately at Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina) into northern and southern
sub-regional quotas, while maintaining
all current quota linkages. Alternative
C3 would apportion the Atlantic
regional quotas for LCS and SCS along
34°00′ N. Latitude (approximately at
Wilmington, North Carolina) into
northern and southern sub-regional
quotas, while maintaining all current
quota linkages. Alternative C5 would
establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of
177.3 mt dw and reduce the nonblacknose SCS commercial quota to 128
mt dw (282,238 lb dw), based on the
results of the 2013 assessment for
bonnethead sharks. Alternative C7
would establish a non-blacknose SCS
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
TAC of 489.3 mt dw and increase the
commercial quota to 264.1 mt dw
(582,333 lb dw), which is equal to the
2014 adjusted non-blacknose SCS quota.
While some of these alternatives share
some similar components with the
preferred alternatives, NMFS does not
prefer the remaining alternatives at this
time for a variety of reasons. Alternative
C1, the status quo alternative, does not
address some of the issues facing the
Atlantic shark fisheries and the current
purpose of Amendment 6 to increase
flexibility for shark fishermen. While
neutral ecological impacts on Atlantic
shark species and non-target species are
anticipated from Alternatives C2 and
C3, they do not take into consideration
quota linkages between non-blacknose
SCS and blacknose sharks. Under
Alternative C5, the non-blacknose SCS
TAC and commercial quota are limited
by the results of the bonnethead shark
stock assessment and do not take the
results of the Atlantic sharpnose stock
assessment or the status of finetooth
sharks into account. Finally, Alternative
C7 would cap the non-blacknose SCS
commercial quota at a higher level than
Alternative C6 and does not account for
the uncertainties in the SEDAR 34
bonnethead stock assessment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
Gulf of Mexico Regional and SubRegional Quotas
Similar to management measures
considered in the Atlantic region, NMFS
is also considering implementing subregional quotas for shark management
groups in the Gulf of Mexico region. The
two preferred alternatives are
Alternative D4 and D6. Alternative D4
would apportion the base annual
commercial quotas for the Gulf of
Mexico LCS management groups into
eastern and western sub-regional quotas
along 89°00′ W Longitude, based on
historical landings percentages (see
Discussion in section 2.4 of Draft EA).
It would also maintain the linkage
between aggregated LCS and
hammerhead sharks in the eastern Gulf
of Mexico sub-region, eliminate the
linkage between aggregated LCS and
hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf
of Mexico sub-region, and prohibit the
harvest and landings of hammerhead
sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico
sub-region. NMFS would maintain
linkages between the remaining
management groups. Removing linkages
between the additional management
groups would require an adjustment in
quotas in order to account for potential
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2655
interactions and mortalities, and could
result in an increase in regulatory
discards. The western sub-regional
quota for hammerhead sharks would be
0 mt dw. Sub-regional quotas for LCS,
based on percentages of landings
apportioned to each sub-region, are
outlined for the Gulf of Mexico LCS in
Figure 2. As described above in the
Atlantic regional and sub-regional
quotas section, any overharvest of the
overall regional base quota would be
deducted from the sub-region(s) that
caused the overharvest. However, if a
sub-region’s quota is overharvested but
the overall regional quota is not
exceeded, then no overharvest would be
deducted from either sub-region the
following fishing season. In addition, in
cases where carry over is allowed, any
underharvest of the overall regional base
quota would be equally distributed to
both sub-regions in the next fishing
season, unless the status of the species
or one of the species in the management
group is unknown, overfished, or
overfishing is occurring, in which case,
NMFS would not carry over the
underharvest to the following year’s
base annual quota.
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 3510–22–C
Preferred Alternative D4 would likely
result in both direct and indirect shortand long-term neutral ecological
impacts on LCS within the western and
eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-regions. The
preferred sub-regional LCS quotas
would have no impact on the current
level of fishing pressure, catch rates or
distribution of fishing effort since
current LCS quotas are being
maintained, but instead represents an
administrative change in how quotas are
monitored throughout the Gulf of
Mexico region. In the eastern Gulf of
Mexico sub-region, no changes would
be made in the existing quota linkages
between aggregated LCS and
hammerhead sharks, which would
likely result in neutral ecological
impacts, since current conditions would
be maintained. In contrast, in the
western Gulf of Mexico sub-region,
quota linkages would be removed
between aggregated LCS and
hammerhead sharks. While quota
linkages mitigate incidental mortality of
species caught together, only 0.6 percent
of hammerhead shark landings in the
Gulf of Mexico region can be attributed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
to fishing activities in the western Gulf
of Mexico sub-region. In the western
Gulf of Mexico region, due to the
difficulties associated with managing a
small quota of 0.1 mt dw, harvest of
hammerhead sharks would be
prohibited. Prohibiting harvest of
hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf
of Mexico would reduce the likelihood
of overharvesting the hammerhead
shark quota by quickly exceeding a
small quota, and eliminate the need to
monitor a small quota. Because landings
of hammerhead in the western Gulf of
Mexico are minimal, Alternative D4
would still likely result in neutral
ecological impacts on LCS within the
western Gulf of Mexico sub-region.
Alternative D4 would likely result in
both direct and indirect short- and longterm neutral socioeconomic impacts
across the entire Gulf of Mexico region,
as increased revenues associated with
increased flexibility with season
opening dates as a result of
implementing sub-regional quotas
would be countered by potential losses
from prohibiting landings of
hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf
of Mexico. Removing quota linkages
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
within the western Gulf of Mexico subregion would have beneficial
socioeconomic impacts, as fishermen
active in this region would be able to
continue fishing for aggregated LCS
without fishing activities in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico sub-region determining
the timing of the aggregated LCS fishery
closure. Economic advantages
associated with removing quota
linkages, allowing the western Gulf of
Mexico sub-region to continue to land a
larger number of aggregated LCS, would
offset any potential lost income from
prohibiting landings of hammerhead
shark. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico subregion, no socioeconomic impacts are
expected by maintaining the quota
linkages already in place for LCS.
The other preferred alternative,
Alternative D6, would establish a Gulf
of Mexico non-blacknose SCS TAC of
954.7 mt dw and increase the
commercial quota in the Gulf of Mexico
region to the 2014 adjusted annual
quota of 68.3 mt dw (150,476 lb dw).
This TAC is calculated by summing the
sources of mortality for Atlantic
sharpnose, bonnethead, and finetooth
sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
EP20JA15.001
2656
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(recreational landings, commercial
discards, and research set-aside
mortality) and adding the 2014 adjusted
annual quota of 68.3 mt dw. This nonblacknose SCS TAC and commercial
quota takes into account all sources of
mortality for Atlantic sharpnose,
bonnethead, and finetooth sharks and
maintains current quota levels, due to
uncertainty with the SEDAR 34 stock
assessment and comments from the
stock assessment peer reviewers, who
expressed concern that bonnethead
sharks were not split into two different
stocks and analyzed in a manner that is
similar to what was done with Atlantic
sharpnose sharks. In addition, there is
uncertainty about the data and life
history information for finetooth sharks,
so NMFS would prefer to take a
relatively conservative approach with
finetooth sharks and not increase
landings substantially until a new stock
assessment is complete. The commercial
quota under Alternative D6 reflects the
current fishing effort and pressure in the
Gulf of Mexico for non-blacknose SCS.
Under Alternative D6, the commercial
quota and TAC would not result in any
changes in current fishing effort or catch
rates of non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf
of Mexico. With anticipated fishing
activities remaining the same, no
increases in potential bycatch or
increased interactions with non-target,
incidentally caught species are
expected. Thus, the preferred
Alternative D6, would likely result in
short- and long-term minor beneficial
ecological impacts on non-blacknose
SCS in the Gulf of Mexico region
because the alternative maintains the
quota at the present level, which is
below the quota projected in the stock
assessment, and interactions with
blacknose sharks would remain the
same.
Alternative D6 would result in both
direct and indirect short- and long-term
neutral to minor adverse socioeconomic
impacts because it would increase the
commercial quota above the current
base non-blacknose SCS quota,
providing fishermen with additional
opportunities to profit from landing
non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf of
Mexico region, while keeping
interactions with blacknose sharks at
current levels, as quota linkages would
be maintained. Given current financial
difficulties faced by fishermen,
associated with declining ex-vessel
prices and restrictions on the sale of
shark fins, the beneficial socioeconomic
impacts of increasing the annual quota
by 12.8 mt dw from the current base
quota would likely be minimal. In
addition, the proposed commercial
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
quota of 68.3 mt dw could have minor
adverse impacts since 2013 nonblacknose SCS landings exceeded this
commercial quota. However, due to the
uncertainties in SEDAR 34 and given
the unknown stock status of bonnethead
sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region and
uncertainty about the data and life
history information for finetooth sharks,
NMFS believes that the proposed
commercial quota would continue to
provide fishermen with sufficient
opportunity to harvest non-blacknose
SCS, while maintaining the species at
sustainable levels.
Cumulatively, Alternatives D4 and D6
would have positive impacts on the
current state of shark fisheries in the
Gulf of Mexico region. Implementing
the eastern and western sub-regional
quotas in Alternative D4 would allow
fishermen to maximize their fishing
effort during periods when sharks
migrate into local waters or periods
when sales of shark meat are increased,
as well as providing increased revenue
associated with potentially landing a
larger portion of their sub-regional
quota. Additionally, Alternative D4
would provide increased flexibility in
the application of shark management
measures throughout the Gulf of Mexico
region, without having any adverse
economic or ecological consequences.
Alternative D6 would allow for nonblacknose SCS landings to be capped at
the 2014 adjusted quota, and be
conservative based on uncertainties
associated with the SEDAR 34 stock
assessment for bonnethead sharks and
the SEDAR 13 stock assessment for
finetooth sharks. Because of the neutral
ecological impacts expected to shark
species as well as non-target, incidental
species and bycatch, and the moderately
beneficial economic impact expected by
these combined measures, NMFS
prefers these alternatives at this time.
NMFS also analyzed five other
alternatives related to Gulf of Mexico
sub-regional quotas that are not
preferred at this time. Alternative D1,
the No Action alternative, would not
change the current quota management of
the shark fisheries in the Gulf of
Mexico. Alternative D2 would apportion
the Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for
LCS along 89°00′ W Longitude into
eastern and western sub-regional quotas,
while maintaining current linkages.
Alternative D3 would apportion the
Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for LCS
along 88°00′ W Longitude into eastern
and western sub-regional quotas, while
maintaining current linkages.
Alternative D5 would establish a nonblacknose SCS TAC of 931.9 mt dw,
based on current levels of catch, and
maintain the current commercial base
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2657
annual non-blacknose SCS quota of 45.5
mt dw (100,317 lb dw). Alternative D7
would establish a non-blacknose SCS
TAC of 1,064.9 mt dw and increase the
commercial quota to twice the 2013
landings, which is 178.5 mt dw (393,566
lb dw). While some of these alternatives
share some similar components with the
preferred alternatives, NMFS does not
prefer the remaining alternatives at this
time for a variety of reasons. Alternative
D1, the status quo alternative, does not
address some of the issues facing the
Atlantic shark fisheries and the current
purpose of Amendment 6 is to increase
flexibility for shark fishermen.
Alternative D2 does not take into
consideration quota linkages between
aggregated LCS and hammerhead
sharks. While Alternative D3 would
have neutral ecological impacts on Gulf
of Mexico shark species and non-target
species and have beneficial economic
impacts, the alternative is not preferred
because the split in Alternatives D2 and
D4 may reflect the distribution of
fishing constituents better. The quota
under Alternative D5 would not address
the financial difficulties faced by shark
fishermen throughout the Gulf of
Mexico or improve the current state of
the Gulf of Mexico shark fisheries.
Finally, the increased quota under
Alternative D7 could likely negatively
impact blacknose sharks, which have an
unknown status, and would have an
unknown impact on finetooth sharks.
Upgrading Restrictions
NMFS is considering removing the
upgrading restrictions for shark LAP
holders in order to reduce restrictions
for fishermen to buy and sell shark
permits. The current preferred
alternative, Alternative E2, would
remove current upgrading restrictions
for shark directed LAP holders.
Eliminating these restrictions would
have short- and long-term minor
beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since
it would allow fishermen to buy, sell, or
transfer shark directed permits without
worrying about the increase in
horsepower of more than 20 percent or
an increase of more than 10 percent in
length overall, gross registered tonnage,
or net tonnage from the vessel baseline
specifications. In addition, the upgrade
restriction for shark permit holders was
implemented in part to match the
upgrading restrictions for the Northeast
multispecies permits. NMFS is currently
considering removing the upgrading
restrictions for the Northeast
multispecies permits, and if those are
removed, then removing the upgrading
restrictions for shark directed LAP
holders could aid in maintaining
consistency for fishermen who hold
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
2658
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
multiple permits. Removing the
upgrading restrictions would not affect
the number of sharks being landed by
vessels, as the amount of sharks landed
is determined by the retention limit and
quotas, not the size of the vessel. Thus,
this preferred alternative would have
short- and long-term neutral ecological
impacts since removing restrictions on
shark directed LAPs related to vessel
specifications would have no impacts
on the biological status of Atlantic
sharks. NMFS prefers this alternative at
this time because it would provide more
flexibility for current shark LAP holders
by eliminating the upgrading
restrictions for shark directed permit
holders, without having any negative
ecological effects, and potentially could
maintain consistency with the Northeast
multispecies fisheries permit
requirements, if those requirements also
are removed.
NMFS also analyzed the No Action
alternative that would have maintained
the current upgrading restrictions
related to horsepower, length overall,
gross registered tonnage and net
tonnage. This alternative would have
neutral ecological and socioeconomic
impacts, since it would maintain the
status quo. However, the No Action
alternative limits fishermen’s ability to
update vessels or engines to more fuelefficient ones and would provide less
flexibility for fishermen when buying,
selling, or transferring LAPs than the
preferred alternative.
Public Hearings
Comments on this proposed rule may
be submitted via https://
www.regulations.gov, mail, or fax and
comments may also be submitted at a
public hearing. NMFS solicits
comments on this proposed rule by
April 3, 2015. During the comment
period, NMFS will hold 4 public
hearings and 1 conference call for this
proposed rule. The hearing locations
will be physically accessible to people
with disabilities. Requests for sign
language interpretation or other
auxiliary aids should be directed to
´
LeAnn Hogan or Guy DuBeck at 301–
427–8503, at least 7 days prior to the
meeting. NMFS has also asked to
present information on the proposed
rule and draft Amendment 6 to the
Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, South
Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and New
England Fishery Management Councils
and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine
Fisheries Commissions at their meetings
during the public comment period.
Please see their meeting notices for
dates, times, and locations.
TABLE 1—DATES, TIMES, AND LOCATIONS OF UPCOMING PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CONFERENCE CALL
Venue
Date/time
Meeting locations
Location contact information
Public Hearing .....................
February 17, 2015, 5 p.m.–
8 p.m.
St. Petersburg, FL .............
Public Hearing .....................
February 18, 2015, 5 p.m.–
8 p.m.
February 23, 2015, 5 p.m.–
8 p.m.
February 26, 2015, 5 p.m.–
8 p.m.
Melbourne, FL ...................
March 25, 2015, 2 p.m.–4
p.m.
............................................
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional
Office, 263 13th Avenue South, Saint Petersburg,
FL 33701.
Melbourne Public Library, 540 E. Fee Ave, Melbourne,
FL 32901.
Belle Chasse Branch Library, 8442 Louisiana 23, Belle
Chasse, LA 70037.
Commissioners Meeting Room, Dare County Administration Building, 954 Marshall C. Collins Dr.,
Manteo, NC 27954.
To participate in conference call, call: (877) 918–1344
Passcode: 7371832.
To participate in webinar, RSVP at: https://
noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/
g.php?d=998580989&t=a. A confirmation email with
webinar log-in information will be sent after RSVP is
registered.
Public Hearing .....................
Public Hearing .....................
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Conference call ....................
The public is reminded that NMFS
expects participants at the public
hearings to conduct themselves
appropriately. At the beginning of each
public hearing, a representative of
NMFS will explain the ground rules
(e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the
hearing room; attendees will be called to
give their comments in the order in
which they registered to speak; each
attendee will have an equal amount of
time to speak; and attendees should not
interrupt one another). At the beginning
of the conference call, the moderator
will explain how the conference call
will be conducted and how and when
attendees can provide comments. The
NMFS representative will attempt to
structure the meeting so that all
attending members of the public will be
able to comment, if they so choose,
regardless of the controversial nature of
the subject(s). Attendees are expected to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
Belle Chasse, LA ...............
Manteo, NC .......................
respect the ground rules, and, if they do
not, they may be asked to leave the
hearing or may not be allowed to speak
during the conference call.
Classification
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator
has determined that the proposed rule is
consistent with the 2006 Consolidated
HMS FMP and its amendments, other
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Act, and other applicable law, subject to
further consideration after public
comment.
NMFS prepared a draft EA for Draft
Amendment 6 that discusses the impact
on the environment that would occur as
a result of this proposed action. In this
proposed action, NMFS is considering
both adjusting current management
measures affecting the Atlantic shark
fisheries, as well as creating new
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
measures that provide managers and
fishermen with operational and
implementation flexibility. A copy of
the EA is available from NMFS (see
ADDRESSES).
This proposed rule has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as
required by section 603 of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The
IRFA describes the economic impact
this proposed rule would have on small
entities if adopted. A description of the
action, why it is being considered, and
the legal basis for this action are
contained at the beginning of this
section in the preamble and in the
SUMMARY section of the preamble. A
summary of the analysis follows. A copy
of this analysis is available from NMFS
(see ADDRESSES).
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Section 603(b)(1) requires Agencies to
describe the reasons why the action is
being considered. This proposed action
is being considered to implement
management measures for the Atlantic
shark fisheries that will achieve the
objectives of increasing management
flexibility to adapt to the changing
needs of the Atlantic shark fisheries,
and achieve optimum yield while
rebuilding overfished shark stocks and
ending overfishing. In September 2010,
NMFS published an ANPR to request
public comment on potential
adjustments to the regulations governing
the Atlantic shark fisheries to address
specific issues currently affecting
management of the shark fisheries and
to identify specific goals for
management of these fisheries in the
future. Based on the comments received
on the ANPR, in September 2011, NMFS
published a NOI to prepare an FMP
Amendment that would consider catch
shares for the Atlantic shark fisheries.
Since the publication of the NOI, there
have been a few major changes in the
Federal management of the Atlantic
shark fisheries, including the
publication of Amendment 5a. In
addition to the changes in Federal
regulations, there have also been
changes in state shark management,
such as the shark fin possession
prohibitions. In considering comments
received on the ANPR and NOI, in April
2014, NMFS released a Predraft for
Amendment 6 that included
management options for changes to
regional quota and permit structures. On
May, 27 2014, NMFS published another
NOI announcing its intent to prepare an
Environmental Assessment (EA) instead
of an Environmental Impact Statement
and that the agency is moving away
from the catch share concept for this
particular Amendment. Since the
publication of these documents, and
reviewing the comments received,
NMFS has continued to consider
various ways to move forward to
address recurring issues through
regulations that provide managers and
fishermen with increased management
and implementation flexibility, while
maintaining conservation measures for
the commercial shark fisheries.
Section 603(b)(2) requires Agencies to
describe the objectives of the proposed
rule. The management goals and
objectives of this action are to
implement management measures for
the Atlantic shark fisheries that will
achieve the objectives of increasing
management flexibility to adapt to the
changing needs of the Atlantic shark
fisheries, and achieve optimum yield
while rebuilding overfished shark stocks
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
and ending overfishing. To achieve this
purpose and need, and to comply with
existing statutes such as the MagnusonStevens Act and its objectives, NMFS
has identified the following objectives
with regard to this proposed action:
• Increasing the efficiency in the LCS
and SCS fisheries;
• Maintaining or increasing equity
across all shark fishermen and regions;
• Promoting economic viability for
the shark fishery participants;
• Obtaining optimum yield from the
LCS and SCS fisheries;
• Maintaining or increasing
management flexibility for the shark
fisheries;
• Decreasing dead discards of sharks;
• Continuing to rebuild overfished
shark stocks; and
• Preventing overfishing of shark
stocks.
Section 603(b)(3) requires Agencies to
provide an estimate of the number of
small entities to which the rule would
apply. On June 12, 2014, the Small
Business Administration (SBA) issued
an interim final rule revising the small
business size standards for several
industries effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR
33467). The rule increased the size
standard from $19.0 to $20.5 million for
finfish fishing, from $5 to $5.5 million
for shellfish fishing, and from $7.0
million to $7.5 million for other marine
fishing, for-hire businesses, and
marinas. Id. at 33656, 33660, 33666.
NMFS has reviewed the analyses
prepared for this action in light of the
new size standards. Under the former,
lower size standards, all entities subject
to this action were considered small
entities, thus they all would continue to
be considered small under the new
standards. NMFS does not think that the
new size standards affect analyses
prepared for this action and solicits
public comment on the analyses in light
of the new size standards. Under these
standards, NMFS considers all Atlantic
HMS permit holders subject to this
rulemaking to be small entities.
As discussed in Section 3.6.2 of the
Draft EA for Amendment 6, the
proposed rule would apply to the 473
commercial shark permit holders in the
Atlantic shark fishery, based on an
analysis of permit holders as of
September 2014. Of these permit
holders, 214 have directed shark
permits and 259 hold incidental shark
permits. Not all permit holders are
active in the fishery in any given year.
Active directed permit holders are
defined as those with valid permits that
landed one shark based on HMS
electronic dealer reports. Based on 2013
HMS electronic dealer data, 68 shark
directed permit holders were active in
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2659
the Atlantic and 22 shark directed
permit holders were active in the Gulf
of Mexico. NMFS has determined that
the proposed rule would not likely
affect any small governmental
jurisdictions. More information
regarding the description of the fisheries
affected and the categories and number
of permit holders can be found in
Chapter 3 of the Draft EA for
Amendment 6.
Section 603(b)(4) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act requires Agencies to
describe any new reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements. The action does not
contain any new collection of
information, reporting, recordkeeping,
or other compliance requirements.
Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA,
agencies must identify, to the extent
practicable, relevant Federal rules
which duplicate, overlap, or conflict
with the proposed rule. Fishermen,
dealers, and managers in these fisheries
must comply with a number of
international agreements, domestic
laws, and other FMPs. These include
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Atlantic
Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), the High
Seas Fishing Compliance Act, the
Marine Mammal Protection Act, the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), the
National Environmental Policy Act, the
Paperwork Reduction Act, and the
Coastal Zone Management Act. This
proposed rule has been determined not
to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with
any Federal rules.
On July 3, 2014, NMFS published a
final rule that, among other things,
listed as threatened under the ESA a
Central and Southwest Atlantic Distinct
Population Segment (DPS) of scalloped
hammerhead sharks (79 FR 38214). This
DPS occurs within the boundary of
Atlantic HMS commercial and
recreational fisheries, which are
managed by NMFS. On August 27, 2014,
NMFS published a final rule that,
among other things, listed as threatened,
or determined that threatened status
was still warranted for, seven species of
corals that occur within the boundary of
Atlantic HMS fisheries.
On October 30, 2014, based on the
new listings, NMFS requested
reinitiation of ESA section 7
consultation on the continued operation
and use of HMS gear types (bandit gear,
bottom longline, buoy gear, handline,
and rod and reel) and associated
fisheries management actions in the
2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP
and its amendments. NMFS also
submitted a biological evaluation to
support this request for reinitiation of
consultation and to provide
supplemental information for an
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2660
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
ongoing consultation for the pelagic
longline fishery. Pending completion of
consultation, NMFS has determined that
the ongoing operation of the fisheries is
consistent with existing biological
opinions and is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence or result in an
irreversible or irretrievable commitment
of resources which would foreclose
formulation or implementation of any
reasonable and prudent alternative
measures on the threatened Central and
Southwest DPS of scalloped
hammerhead sharks or threatened coral
species.
One of the requirements of an IRFA is
to describe any alternatives to the
proposed rule which accomplish the
stated objectives and which minimize
any significant economic impacts. These
impacts are discussed below.
Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C.
603(c)(1)–(4)) lists four general
categories of ‘‘significant’’ alternatives
that would assist an agency in the
development of significant alternatives.
These categories of alternatives are: (1)
Establishment of differing compliance
or reporting requirements or timetables
that take into account the resources
available to small entities; (2)
clarification, consolidation, or
simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule
for such small entities; (3) use of
performance rather than design
standards; and (4) exemptions from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.
In order to meet the objectives of this
proposed rule, consistent with the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the
ESA, NMFS cannot establish differing
compliance requirements for small
entities or exempt small entities from
compliance requirements. Thus, there
are no alternatives discussed that fall
under the first and fourth categories
described above. NMFS does not know
of any performance or design standards
that would satisfy the objectives of this
rulemaking while, concurrently,
complying with the Magnuson-Stevens
Act. As described below, NMFS
analyzed several different alternatives in
this proposed rulemaking and provides
rationales for identifying the preferred
alternatives to achieve the desired
objectives.
The alternatives considered and
analyzed are described below. The IRFA
assumes that each vessel will have
similar catch and gross revenues to
show the relative impact of the
proposed action on vessels. In this
rulemaking, we considered 6 different
categories of management measures to
address current issues facing LCS and
SCS shark fisheries. These categories are
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
permit stacking (A1–A3), commercial
retention limits (B1–B4), Atlantic subregional quotas (C1–C7), Gulf of Mexico
sub-regional quotas (D1–D7), and
upgrading restrictions (E1 and E2).
Permit Stacking
Under Alternative A1, the preferred
alternative, NMFS would not implement
permit stacking for the shark directed
limited access permit holders. NMFS
would continue to allow only one
directed limited access permit per
vessel and thus one retention limit. The
current retention limit of 36 LCS per
trip would result in potential trip
revenues of $1,166 (1,224 lb of meat, 61
lb of fins) per vessel, assuming an exvessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05
for fins. It is likely that this alternative
could possibly have minor adverse
socioeconomic impacts in the long term,
because if fishermen are unable to retain
an increased number of LCS per trip by
stacking permits, the profitability of
each trip could decline over time, due
to declining prices for shark products
and increasing prices for gas, bait, and
other associated costs. The No Action
alternative could also have neutral
indirect impacts to those supporting the
commercial shark fisheries, since the
retention limits, and thus current
fishing efforts, would not change under
this alternative.
Under Alternative A2, NMFS would
allow fishermen to concurrently use a
maximum of two shark directed permits
on one vessel, which would result in
aggregated, and thus higher, trip limits.
Under the current LCS retention limit of
36 LCS, this would allow a vessel with
two stacked permits to have a LCS
retention limit of 72 LCS per trip. This
new retention limit would result in
potential trip revenues of $2,332 (2,448
lb of meat, 124 lb of fins) per vessel,
assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for
meat and $6.05 for fins, which is an
increase of $1,166 per trip compared to
the status quo alternative. For fishermen
that currently have two directed limited
access permits, this alternative would
have short-term minor beneficial
socioeconomic impacts because these
fishermen would be able to stack their
permits and avail themselves of the
retention limit of 72 LCS per trip. The
higher retention limit is likely to make
each trip more profitable for fishermen,
as well as more efficient, if they decide
to take fewer trips and in turn save
money on gas, bait, and other associated
costs. This alternative could also have
indirect, minor beneficial
socioeconomic impacts to entities
supporting the commercial shark
fisheries, such as fishing tackle
manufacturers and suppliers, bait
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
suppliers, fuel providers, and shark
dealers, because the increased efficiency
and profitability in the fisheries could
also lead to increases in potential
employment, personal income, and
sales for the entities supporting the
fisheries. However, the current number
of directed permits in the Atlantic
region is 136, and 130 of those permits
have different owners. In the Gulf of
Mexico, of the 83 directed shark
permits, 73 have different owners.
Therefore, it is unlikely that many of the
current directed shark permit holders
would be able to benefit from this
alternative in the short-term. In
addition, the cost of one directed shark
permit can run anywhere between
$2,000 and $5,000, which could be
difficult for many shark fishermen to
afford. For fishermen that do not
currently have more than one directed
shark permit, this alternative could have
long-term minor beneficial impacts if
these fishermen are able to acquire an
additional permit and offset the cost of
the additional permit by taking
advantage of the potential economic
benefits of the higher retention limits.
Nevertheless, this alternative is unlikely
to have beneficial socioeconomic
impacts for the shark fishery as a whole
because only shark fishermen that could
afford to buy multiple shark permits
would benefit from the higher retention
limit and higher revenues whereas those
shark fishermen that cannot afford to
buy a second directed shark permit
would be at a disadvantage, unable to
economically benefit from the higher
retention limits. Given the current
make-up of the shark fishery, which
primarily consists of small business
fishermen with only one permit, and the
cost of the additional permit, this could
potentially lead to inequity and
unfairness among the directed shark
permit holders if those fishermen that
currently have multiple directed
permits or that could afford to buy an
additional directed permit gain an
economic advantage.
Under Alternative A3, NMFS would
allow fishermen to concurrently use a
maximum of three shark directed
permits on one vessel, which would
result in aggregated, and thus higher,
trip limits. Under the current LCS
retention limit of 36 LCS, this would
mean that a vessel with three stacked
permits would have a LCS retention
limit of 108 LCS per trip. This
alternative would allow shark directed
permit holders to retain three times as
many LCS per trip then the current
retention limit. This new retention limit
would result in potential trip revenues
of $3,498 (3,672 lb of meat, 184 lb of
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
fins) per vessel, assuming an ex-vessel
price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for
fins, which is an increase of $2,332 per
trip compared to the status quo
alternative. The higher retention limit is
likely to make each trip more profitable
for fishermen, as well as more efficient,
if they decide to take fewer trips and in
turn save money on gas, bait, and other
associated costs. Similar to Alternative
A2, this alternative would have shortterm minor beneficial socioeconomic
impacts for fishermen that currently
have three shark directed limited access
permits, because these fishermen would
be able to stack their permits and avail
themselves of the retention limit of 108
LCS per trip. As mentioned above, the
current number of shark directed permit
holders is 219, with 93 percent having
different owners. Therefore, it is
unlikely that many of the current
directed shark permit holders currently
hold three directed shark permits and
would be able to benefit from this
alternative in the short-term. For
fishermen who do not currently have
more than one directed shark permit,
this alternative could have larger longterm beneficial socioeconomic impacts
than Alternative 2, if these fishermen
are able to acquire two additional
permits and offset the cost of the
additional permits by taking advantage
of the potential economic benefits of
retaining up to 108 LCS per trip.
However, for the same reasons
discussed for Alternative A2, this
alternative is unlikely to have
socioeconomic benefits for those shark
fishermen that cannot afford to buy two
additional directed permits, and thus
would be unable to economically
benefit from a higher retention limit.
Thus, given the current make-up of the
shark fishery, Alternative A3 could
potentially lead to more inequity and
unfairness among the directed shark
permit holders than Alternative A2,
especially if those fishermen that
currently have multiple directed
permits or that could afford to buy
additional directed permits gain an
economic advantage under this
alternative.
Commercial Retention Limits
Alternative B1 would not change the
current commercial LCS retention limit
for shark directed permit holders. The
retention limit would remain at 36 LCS
other than sandbar sharks per trip for
directed permit holders. This retention
limit would result in potential trip
revenues of $1,166 (1,224 lb of meat, 61
lb of fins) per vessel assuming an exvessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05
for fins. It is likely that this alternative
would have short-term neutral
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
socioeconomic impacts, since the
retention limits would not change under
this alternative. However, not adjusting
the retention limit would have longterm minor adverse socioeconomic
impacts, due to the expected continuing
decline in prices for shark products and
increase in gas, bait, and other
associated costs, which would lead to
declining profitability of individual
trips. In recent years, there have been
changes in federal and state regulations,
including the implementation of
Amendment 5a and state bans on the
possession, sale, and trade of shark fins,
which have impacted shark fishermen.
In addition to federal and state
regulations, there have also been many
international efforts to prohibit shark
finning at sea, as well as campaigns
targeted at the shark fin soup markets.
All of these efforts have impacted the
market and demand for shark fins. In
addition, NMFS has seen a steady
decline in ex-vessel prices for shark fins
in all regions since 2010 (NMFS 2013).
Alternative B2, the preferred
alternative, would increase the LCS
retention limit to a maximum of 55 LCS
other than sandbar sharks per trip for
shark directed permit holders and
reduce the sandbar shark research
fishery quota to 75.7 mt dw (166,826 lb
dw). This alternative would allow shark
directed permit holders to retain 19
more LCS per trip than the current
retention limit. This new retention limit
would result in potential trip revenues
of $1,781 (1,870 lb of meat, 94 lb of
fins), assuming an ex-vessel price of
$0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins. This
alternative would have short- and longterm direct minor beneficial
socioeconomic impacts, since shark
directed permit holders could land more
sharks per trip when compared to the
current retention limit of 36 LCS per
trip. The higher retention limit is likely
to make each trip more profitable for
fishermen, as well as more efficient, if
they decide to take fewer trips, and in
turn save money on fuel, bait, and other
associated costs. Regarding the shark
research fishery, this alternative could
cause an average annual loss of $85,944,
since the sandbar research fishery quota
would be reduced by 90,230 lb dw. This
potential lost income for the research
fishery could be positive for commercial
fishermen, since the increased retention
limit could make trips more profitable.
NMFS estimates that this reduction in
the sandbar research fishery quota
would have neutral socioeconomic
impacts, based on current limited
resources available to fund observed
trips in the fishery and the current
harvest level of the sandbar research
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2661
fishery quota. In 2013, the vessels
participating in the Atlantic shark
research fishery only landed 37.0 mt dw
(81,628 lb dw), or 32 percent, of the
available sandbar shark quota. Under
the new sandbar shark quota with the
Atlantic shark research fishery, the 2013
landings would result in 49 percent of
the new sandbar shark quota being
landed. If available resources increase in
the future for more observed trips in the
fishery, then this alternative could have
minor adverse socioeconomic impacts if
the full quota is caught and the fishery
has to close earlier in the year.
Alternative B3 would increase the
LCS retention limit to a maximum of 72
LCS other than sandbar sharks per trip
for shark directed permit holders and
reduce the sandbar shark research
fishery quota to 63.0 mt dw (138,937 lb
dw). This alternative would double the
current retention limit. This new
retention limit would result in potential
trip revenues of $2,332 (2,448 lb of
meat, 124 lb of fins), assuming an exvessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05
for fins. This alternative would have
short- and long-term minor beneficial
socioeconomic impacts, since shark
directed permit holders could land
twice as many LCS per trip. Shark
directed trips would become more
profitable, but more permit holders
could become active in order to avail
themselves of this higher trip limit.
Before Amendment 2, there were 143
active directed shark permit holders,
and the number of active directed shark
permit holders has declined to 90, due
to the current retention limit and
declines in shark product prices. The
increased retention limit could cause
some fishermen to become active again,
potentially causing a derby fishery and
bringing the price of shark products
even lower. Thus, NMFS needs to
balance providing the flexibility of
increasing the efficiency of trips and the
associated socioeconomic benefits with
the negative socioeconomic impacts of
derby fishing and lower profits. This
alternative could have neutral impacts
for fishermen participating in the
Atlantic shark research fishery, since
the 2013 landings (37.0 mt dw; 81,628
lb dw) would result in 59 percent of the
new sandbar shark quota being landed.
Under Alternative B3, the new sandbar
shark quota could result in average
annual loss revenue of $112,508 for
those fishermen participating in the
shark research fishery, but the income
could be recouped by the increased
retention limit outside the shark
research fishery. If available resources
increase in the future for more observed
trips in the fishery, then this alternative
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
2662
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
still would have neutral socioeconomic
impacts, since the observed trips would
be distributed throughout the year to
ensure the research fishery remains
open and obtains biological and catch
data all year round.
Alternative B4 would increase the
LCS retention limit to a maximum of
108 LCS other than sandbar sharks per
trip for shark directed permit holders
and reduce the sandbar shark research
fishery quota to 36.2 mt dw (79,878 lb
dw). This alternative would allow shark
directed permit holders to retain three
times as many LCS per trip as the
current retention limit. This new
retention limit would result in potential
trip revenues of $3,498 (3,672 lb of
meat, 184 lb of fins), assuming an exvessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05
for fins. This alternative could have
short- and long-term moderate
beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since
shark directed permit holders could
land three times the current LCS
retention limit. This increased retention
limit could result in 3,672 lb dw of LCS
per trip, which could bring the fishery
almost back to historical levels of 4,000
lb dw LCS per trip. While a retention
limit of 108 LCS per trip would make
each trip more profitable and potentially
require fishermen to take fewer trips per
year, this large increase in the retention
limit could cause a lot more permit
holders to become active. Thus, the
profit of individual vessels could
decrease, because LCS quotas could be
caught at a faster rate, and the fishing
season could be shortened.
Additionally, in order to increase the
retention limit to 108 LCS per trip, the
sandbar shark research quota would
need to be reduced to an amount below
what is currently being landed in the
shark research fishery, which would
have adverse impacts on fishermen in
the shark research fishery, who would
lose quota, and thus revenue.
Atlantic Regional and Sub-Regional
Quotas
Alternative C1, the No Action
alternative, would not change the
current management of the Atlantic
shark fisheries. This alternative would
likely result in short-term, direct neutral
socioeconomic impacts as fisheries
would continue to operate under
current conditions, with shark
fishermen continuing to fish at current
rates. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel
prices, the annual gross revenues for the
entire fleet from aggregated LCS and
hammerhead shark meat in the Atlantic
region would be $339,998, while the
shark fins would be $76,299. Thus, total
average annual gross revenues for
aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
landings in the Atlantic region would be
$416,297 ($339,998 + $76,299), which is
9 percent of the entire revenue for the
shark fishery. For the non-blacknose
SCS and blacknose shark landings, the
annual gross revenues for the entire fleet
from the meat would be $304,747, while
the shark fins would be $75,537. The
total average annual gross revenues for
non-blacknose SCS and blacknose shark
landings in the Atlantic region would be
$380,284 ($304,747 + $75,537), which is
8 percent of the entire revenue for the
shark fishery. However, this alternative
would likely result in long-term minor
adverse socioeconomic impacts.
Negative impacts would be partly due to
the continued negative effects of federal
and state regulations related to shark
finning and sale of shark fins, which
have resulted in declining ex-vessel
prices of fins since 2010, as well as
continued changes in shark fishery
management measures. Additionally,
under the current regulations, fishermen
operating in the south of the Atlantic
region drastically impact the availability
of quota remaining for fishermen
operating in the north of the Atlantic
region. If fishermen in the south fish
early in the year, they have the ability
to land a large proportion of the quota
before fishermen in the north have the
opportunity to fish, due to time/area
closures and seasonal migrations of LCS
and SCS. Indirect short-term
socioeconomic impacts resulting from
any of the actions in Alternative C1
would likely be neutral because the
measures would maintain the status quo
with respect to shark landings and
fishing effort. However, this alternative
would likely result in indirect long-term
minor adverse socioeconomic impacts.
Negative socioeconomic impacts and
decreased revenues associated with
financial difficulties experienced by
fishermen within Atlantic shark
fisheries would carry over to the dealers
and supporting businesses they
regularly interact with.
Alternative C2 would apportion the
Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and
SCS along 33°00′ N. Lat. (approximately
at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina) into
northern and southern sub-regional
quotas and potentially adjust the nonblacknose SCS quota based on the
results of the 2013 assessments for
Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead
sharks. Establishing sub-regional quotas
could allow for flexibility in seasonal
openings within the Atlantic region.
Different seasonal openings within subregions would allow fishermen to
maximize their fishing effort during
periods when sharks migrate into local
waters or when regional time/area
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
closures are not in effect. This would
benefit the economic interests of North
Carolina and Florida fishermen, the
primary constituents impacted by the
timing of seasonal openings for LCS and
SCS in the Atlantic, by placing them in
separate sub-regions with separate subregional quotas. Under this alternative,
the northern Atlantic sub-region would
receive 24.5 percent of the total
aggregated LCS quota (41.4 mt dw;
91,275 lb dw) and 34.1 percent of the
total hammerhead shark quota (9.2 mt
dw; 20,370 lb dw). Based on the 2013
ex-vessel prices, the annual gross
revenues for aggregated LCS and
hammerhead shark meat in the northern
Atlantic sub-region would be $86,970,
while the shark fins would be $19,705.
Thus, total average annual gross
revenues for aggregated LCS and
hammerhead shark landings in the
northern Atlantic sub-region would be
$106,675 ($86,970 + $19,705). There are
approximately 61 directed shark permit
holders in the northern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of
individual permits, the total average
annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would
be $1,749 per vessel. When compared to
the other alternatives, the northern
Atlantic sub-region would have minor
beneficial socioeconomic impacts under
Alternative C2, because this alternative
would result in the highest total average
annual gross revenues for aggregated
LCS and hammerhead sharks. In the
southern Atlantic sub-region, fishermen
would receive 75.5 percent of the total
aggregated LCS quota (127.5 mt dw;
281,277 lb dw) and 65.9 percent of the
total hammerhead shark quota (17.9 mt
dw; 39,366 lb dw). Based on the 2013
ex-vessel prices, the annual gross
revenues for aggregated LCS and
hammerhead shark meat in the southern
Atlantic sub-region would be $253,029,
while the shark fins would be $56,593.
The total average annual gross revenues
for aggregated LCS and hammerhead
shark landings in the southern Atlantic
sub-region would be $309,622 ($253,029
+ $56,593). When compared to the other
alternatives, the southern Atlantic subregion would have minor adverse
socioeconomic impacts under
Alternative C2, because this alternative
would result in lower total average
annual gross revenues for aggregated
LCS and hammerhead sharks.
Under Alternative C2, NMFS would
determine the blacknose shark quota for
each sub-region using the percentage of
landings associated with blacknose
sharks within each sub-region and the
new non-blacknose SCS quotas in
conjunction with Alternatives C5, C6,
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
and C7. The northern Atlantic subregion would receive 32.3 percent of the
total non-blacknose SCS quota, while
the southern Atlantic sub-region would
receive 67.7 percent of the total nonblacknose SCS quota in this alternative.
For the blacknose sharks, the northern
Atlantic sub-region would receive 4.5
percent of the total blacknose shark
quota (0.8 mt dw; 1,739 lb dw), while
the southern Atlantic sub-region would
receive 95.5 percent of the total
blacknose shark quota (16.7 mt dw;
36,899 lb dw). Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues
for blacknose shark meat in the northern
Atlantic sub-region would be $1,443,
while the shark fins would be $307.
Thus, total average annual gross
revenues for blacknose shark landings
in the northern Atlantic sub-region
would be $1,750 ($1,443 + $307). Based
on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual
gross revenues for blacknose shark meat
in the southern Atlantic sub-region
would be $30,626, while the shark fins
would be $6,513. The total average
annual gross revenues for blacknose
shark landings in the southern Atlantic
sub-region would be $37,139 ($30,626 +
$6,513).
This alternative would have minor
beneficial socioeconomic impacts for
the northern Atlantic sub-region
fishermen when compared to
Alternative C3, because fishermen in the
northern Atlantic sub-region would
receive a higher quota under Alternative
C2. Alternative C2 would have minor
adverse economic impacts for the
southern Atlantic sub-region fishermen
when compared to other alternatives,
because fishermen in the southern
Atlantic sub-region would receive a
lower quota under Alternative C2. The
slight increase in some of the subregional quotas within the northern
Atlantic sub-region would result in
direct short-term minor beneficial
impacts, and ultimately direct long-term
moderate beneficial impacts. Beneficial
economic impacts are based on
increased average annual gross revenues
associated with increased aggregated
LCS, hammerhead, and non-blacknose
SCS sub-regional quotas in the northern
Atlantic region seen in this alternative.
While Alternative C2 would allow
fishermen flexibility to maximize
landings of LCS and SCS within their
associated sub-regions, it does not take
into consideration the SEDAR 34 stock
assessment results or the quota linkages
between non-blacknose SCS and
blacknose sharks, and therefore, NMFS
does not prefer this alternative at this
time.
Alternative C3 would apportion the
Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
SCS along 34°00′ N. Lat. (approximately
at Wilmington, North Carolina) into
northern and southern sub-regional
quotas and potentially adjust the nonblacknose SCS quota based on the
results of the 2013 assessments for
Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead
sharks. This alternative would likely
result in direct short-term minor
beneficial impacts, and ultimately direct
long-term moderate beneficial impacts.
However, drawing the regional
boundary between the northern and
southern Atlantic sub-regions along
34°00′ N. Lat. would result in more
equitable sub-regional quotas, in
comparison to the boundary considered
in Alternative C2. Under this
alternative, the northern Atlantic subregion would receive 19.7 percent of the
total aggregated LCS quota (33.3 mt dw;
73,393 lb dw) and 34.1 percent of the
total hammerhead shark quota (9.2 mt
dw; 20,370 lb dw). Based on the 2013
ex-vessel prices, the annual gross
revenues for aggregated LCS and
hammerhead shark meat in the northern
Atlantic sub-region would be $72,485,
while the shark fins would be $16,549.
Thus, total average annual gross
revenues for aggregated LCS and
hammerhead shark landings in the
northern Atlantic sub-region would be
$89,034 ($72,485 + $16,549). There are
approximately 61 directed shark permit
holders in the northern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of
individual permits, the total average
annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would
be $1,460 per vessel. When compared to
Alternative C2, the northern Atlantic
sub-region would have minor adverse
economic impacts under this
alternative. In the southern Atlantic subregion, fishermen would receive 80.3
percent of the total aggregated LCS
quota (135.6 mt dw; 299,159 lb dw) and
65.9 percent of the total hammerhead
shark quota (17.9 mt dw; 39,366 lb dw).
Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the
annual gross revenues for aggregated
LCS and hammerhead shark meat in the
southern Atlantic sub-region would be
$267,513, while the shark fins would be
$59,750. The total average annual gross
revenues for aggregated LCS and
hammerhead shark landings in the
southern Atlantic sub-region would be
$327,263 ($267,513 + $59,750). There
are approximately 64 directed shark
permit holders in the southern Atlantic
sub-region. Based on this number of
individual permits, the total average
annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would
be $5,113 per vessel. This alternative
would have minor beneficial economic
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2663
impacts for the southern Atlantic subregion fishermen when compared to
Alternative C2.
As in Alternative C2, NMFS would
determine the blacknose shark quota for
each sub-region using the percentage of
landings associated with blacknose
sharks within each sub-region in
Alternative C3 and the new nonblacknose SCS quotas in conjunction in
Alternatives C5, C6, and C7. Under
Alternative C3, the northern Atlantic
sub-region would receive 30.3 percent
of the total non-blacknose SCS quota,
while the southern Atlantic sub-region
would receive 69.7 percent of the total
non-blacknose SCS quota. For the
blacknose sharks, the northern Atlantic
sub-region would receive 4.5 percent of
the total blacknose shark quota (0.8 mt
dw; 1,732 lb dw), while the southern
Atlantic sub-region would receive 95.5
percent of the total blacknose shark
quota (16.7 mt dw; 36,899 lb dw). Based
on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual
gross revenues for blacknose shark meat
in the northern Atlantic sub-region
would be $1,443, while the shark fins
would be $307. Thus, total average
annual gross revenues for blacknose
shark landings in the northern Atlantic
sub-region would be $1,750 ($1,443 +
$307). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel
prices, the annual gross revenues for
blacknose shark meat in the southern
Atlantic sub-region would be $30,626,
while the shark fins would be $6,513.
The total average annual gross revenues
for blacknose shark landings in the
southern Atlantic sub-region would be
$37,139 ($30,626 + $6,513). This
alternative would have neutral
socioeconomic impacts for the northern
Atlantic sub-region fishermen when
compared to Alternative C2, and would
have beneficial socioeconomic impacts
for the southern Atlantic sub-region
fishermen when compared to
Alternative C2.
Alternative C4, one of the preferred
alternatives, would apportion the
Atlantic regional quotas for certain LCS
and SCS management groups along
34°00′ N. Latitude (approximately at
Wilmington, North Carolina) into
northern and southern sub-regional
quotas, maintain SCS quota linkages in
the southern sub-region of the Atlantic
region, remove the SCS quota linkages
in the northern sub-region of the
Atlantic region, and prohibit the harvest
and landings of blacknose sharks in the
northern Atlantic sub-region. The
socioeconomic impacts of apportioning
the Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and
SCS along 34°00′ N. Lat. into northern
and southern sub-regional quotas as
preferred in this alternative would have
the same impacts as described in
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2664
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
alternative C3 above. Removing quota
linkages within the northern Atlantic
sub-region would have beneficial
impacts, as active fishermen in this
region would be able to continue fishing
for non-blacknose SCS without the
fishing activities in the southern
Atlantic sub-region, where the majority
of blacknose sharks are landed,
impacting the timing of the nonblacknose SCS fishery closure.
Economic advantages associated with
removing quota linkages, allowing the
northern Atlantic sub-region to land a
larger number of non-blacknose SCS,
would outweigh the income lost from
prohibiting landings of blacknose sharks
($1,750), particularly given the minimal
landings of blacknose sharks attributed
to the northern sub-region. In the
southern Atlantic region, no
socioeconomic impacts are expected by
maintaining the quota linkages already
in place for SCS. Thus, by removing
quota linkages in the northern Atlantic
region, in combination with
apportioning the Atlantic regional quota
at 34°00′ N. Lat. to allow fishermen to
maximize their fishing effort, and
thereby maximize revenue, during
periods when sharks migrate into local
waters or when regional time/area
closures are not in place, Alternative C4
would result in overall direct and
indirect, short- and long-term moderate
beneficial socioeconomic impacts.
Alternative C5 would establish a nonblacknose SCS TAC of 353.2 mt dw and
reduce the non-blacknose SCS
commercial quota to 128 mt dw
(282,238 lb dw). When combined with
the other alternatives to establish subregional non-blacknose SCS quotas, the
economic impacts of Alternative C5
would vary based on the alternative.
Under Alternative C2, the northern
Atlantic sub-region would receive 32.2
percent of the total non-blacknose SCS
quota (41.2 mt dw; 90,881 lb dw) and
the southern Atlantic sub-region would
receive 67.8 percent of the total nonblacknose SCS quota (86.8 mt dw;
191,357 lb dw). Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues
for non-blacknose SCS meat in the
northern Atlantic sub-region would be
$63,617, while the shark fins would be
$16,040. Thus, total average annual
gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS
landings in the northern Atlantic subregion would be $79,657 ($63,617 +
$16,040). There are approximately 61
directed shark permit holders in the
northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on
this number of individual permits, the
total average annual gross revenues for
the directed permit holders in this subregion would be $1,306 per vessel.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the
annual gross revenues for non-blacknose
SCS meat in the southern Atlantic subregion would be $133,950, while the
shark fins would be $33,775. The total
average annual gross revenues for nonblacknose SCS landings in the southern
Atlantic sub-region would be $167,724
($133,950 + $33,775). There are
approximately 56 directed shark permit
holders in the southern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of
individual permits, the total average
annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would
be $2,995 per vessel. Sub-regional
quotas under Alternative C2 are about a
two percent increase in landings
allocated to the northern region for nonblacknose SCS when compared to
Alternative C3. This percentage would
lead to a slight increase in some of the
sub-regional quotas within the northern
Atlantic sub-region, as compared to
Alternative C3, and would result in
short-term minor beneficial impacts,
and ultimately long-term moderate
beneficial impacts in the northern
Atlantic sub-region.
Using the quotas considered under
Alternative C5 and the sub-regional split
under Alternatives C3 and C4 (preferred
alternative), the northern Atlantic subregion would receive 30.3 percent of the
total non-blacknose SCS quota (38.8 mt
dw; 85,518 lb dw), while the southern
Atlantic sub-region would receive 69.7
percent of the total non-blacknose SCS
quota (89.2 mt dw; 196,720 lb dw).
Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the
annual gross revenues for non-blacknose
SCS meat in the northern Atlantic subregion would be $59,863, while the
shark fins would be $15,094. The total
average annual gross revenues for nonblacknose SCS landings in the northern
Atlantic sub-region would be $74,957
($59,863 + $15,094). There are
approximately 53 directed shark permit
holders in the northern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of
individual permits, the total average
annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would
be $1,414 per vessel. Based on the 2013
ex-vessel prices, the annual gross
revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in
the southern Atlantic sub-region would
be $137,704, while the shark fins would
be $34,721. The total average annual
gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS
landings in the southern Atlantic subregion would be $172,425 ($137,704 +
$34,721). There are approximately 64
directed shark permit holders in the
southern Atlantic sub-region. Based on
this number of individual permits, the
total average annual gross revenues for
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the directed permit holders in this subregion would be $2,694 per vessel.
Overall, the non-blacknose SCS
commercial quota considered under this
alternative is almost thirty percent less
than the current base quota and less
than half of the current adjusted quota
for this management group. Therefore,
NMFS believes this alternative would
have short- and long-term minor adverse
socioeconomic impacts due to the quota
being capped at a lower level than what
is currently being landed in the nonblacknose SCS fisheries, leading to a
loss in annual revenue for these shark
fishermen. In addition, the adverse
impacts would be compounded by the
unknown stock status of bonnethead,
which would prevent NMFS from
carrying forward underharvested quota.
Thus, the commercial quota of 128 mt
dw would not be adjusted and the
fishermen would be limited to this
amount each year, which could lead to
shorter seasons and reduced flexibility,
potentially affecting fishermen’s
decisions to participate.
Under Alternative C6, a preferred
alternative, NMFS would establish a
non-blacknose SCS TAC and maintain
the current base annual quota of 176.1
mt dw (388,222 lb dw). When combined
with the other alternatives to establish
sub-regional non-blacknose SCS quotas,
the economic impacts of Alternative C6
would vary based on the sub-regional
quotas. Under Alternatives C2, the
northern Atlantic sub-region would
receive 32.2 percent of the total nonblacknose SCS quota (56.7 mt dw;
125,007 lb dw) and the southern
Atlantic sub-region would receive 67.8
percent of the total non-blacknose SCS
quota (119.4 mt dw; 263,215 lb dw).
Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the
annual gross revenues for non-blacknose
SCS meat in the northern Atlantic subregion would be $87,505, while the
shark fins would be $22,064. Thus, total
average annual gross revenues for nonblacknose SCS landings in the northern
Atlantic sub-region would be $109,569
($87,505 + $22,064). There are
approximately 61 directed shark permit
holders in the northern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of
individual permits, the total average
annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would
be $1,796 per vessel. Based on the 2013
ex-vessel prices, the annual gross
revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in
the southern Atlantic sub-region would
be $184,251, while the shark fins would
be $46,457. The total average annual
gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS
landings in the southern Atlantic subregion would be $230,708 ($184,251 +
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
$46,457). There are approximately 56
directed shark permit holders in the
southern Atlantic sub-region. Based on
this number of individual permits, the
total average annual gross revenues for
the directed permit holders in this subregion would be $4,119 per vessel. Subregional quotas under Alternative C2
would lead to some slightly higher subregional quotas within the northern
Atlantic sub-region, as compared to
Alternative C3, and would result in
short-term minor beneficial impacts,
and ultimately long-term moderate
beneficial impacts in the northern
Atlantic sub-region.
Using the quotas considered under
Alternative C6 and the sub-regional split
considered under Alternatives C3 and
C4 (preferred alternative), the northern
Atlantic sub-region would receive 30.3
percent of the total non-blacknose SCS
quota (53.4 mt dw; 117,631 lb dw),
while the southern Atlantic sub-region
would receive 69.7 percent of the total
non-blacknose SCS quota (123.7 mt dw;
270,591 lb dw). Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues
for non-blacknose SCS meat in the
northern Atlantic sub-region would be
$82,342, while the shark fins would be
$20,762. The total average annual gross
revenues for non-blacknose SCS
landings in the northern Atlantic subregion would be $103,104 ($82,342 +
$20,762). There are approximately 53
directed shark permit holders in the
northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on
this number of individual permits, the
total average annual gross revenues for
the directed permit holders in this subregion would be $1,945 per vessel.
Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the
annual gross revenues for non-blacknose
SCS meat in the southern Atlantic subregion would be $189,414, while the
shark fins would be $47,759. The total
average annual gross revenues for nonblacknose SCS landings in the southern
Atlantic sub-region would be $237,173
($189,414 + $47,759). There are
approximately 64 directed shark permit
holders in the southern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of
individual permits, the total average
annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would
be $3,706 per vessel. Overall,
Alternative C6 would lead to a lower
quota in the northern Atlantic subregion, as compared to current landings
under the higher base quota. However,
NMFS prefers this alternative at this
time because it accounts for the status
of Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead
sharks and takes into account all
sources of mortality for both species and
would continue to allow fishermen to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
land non-blacknose SCS at current
levels.
Under Alternative C7, NMFS would
establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of
489.3 mt dw and increase the quota to
the current adjusted base annual quota
of 264.1 mt dw (582,333 lb dw). The
economic impacts of Alternative C7
would vary when combined with the
other alternatives to establish subregional non-blacknose SCS quotas.
Under Alternative C2, the northern
Atlantic sub-region would receive 32.2
percent of the total non-blacknose SCS
quota (85.0 mt dw; 187,511 lb dw) and
the southern Atlantic sub-region would
receive 67.8 percent of the total nonblacknose SCS quota (179.1 mt dw;
394,822 lb dw). Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues
for non-blacknose SCS meat in the
northern Atlantic sub-region would be
$131,258, while the shark fins would be
$33,096. Thus, total average annual
gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS
landings in the northern Atlantic subregion would be $164,353 ($131,258 +
$33,096). There are approximately 61
directed shark permit holders in the
northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on
this number of individual permits, the
total average annual gross revenues for
the directed permit holders in this subregion would be $2,694 per vessel.
Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the
annual gross revenues for non-blacknose
SCS meat in the southern Atlantic subregion would be $276,375, while the
shark fins would be $69,686. The total
average annual gross revenues for nonblacknose SCS landings in the southern
Atlantic sub-region would be $346,061
($276,375 + $69,686). There are
approximately 56 directed shark permit
holders in the southern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of
individual permits, the total average
annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would
be $6,179 per vessel. Sub-regional
quotas under Alternatives C2 would
lead to some slightly higher sub-regional
quotas within the northern Atlantic subregion, as compared to Alternative C3
and C4, and would result in short-term
minor beneficial impacts, and
ultimately long-term moderate
beneficial impacts in the northern
Atlantic sub-region, especially if there is
no quota linkage to blacknose sharks in
the northern Atlantic sub-region.
Using the quotas considered under
Alternative C7 and the sub-regional split
considered under Alternatives C3 and
C4 (preferred alternative), the northern
Atlantic sub-region would receive 30.3
percent of the total non-blacknose SCS
quota (80.0 mt dw; 176,447 lb dw),
while the southern Atlantic sub-region
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2665
would receive 69.7 percent of the total
non-blacknose SCS quota (184.1 mt dw;
405,886 lb dw). Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues
for non-blacknose SCS meat in the
northern Atlantic sub-region would be
$123,513, while the shark fins would be
$31,143. The total average annual gross
revenues for non-blacknose SCS
landings in the northern Atlantic subregion would be $154,656 ($123,513 +
$31,143). There are approximately 53
directed shark permit holders in the
northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on
this number of individual permits, the
total average annual gross revenues for
the directed permit holders in this subregion would be $2,918 per vessel.
Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the
annual gross revenues for non-blacknose
SCS meat in the southern Atlantic subregion would be $284,120, while the
shark fins would be $71,639. The total
average annual gross revenues for nonblacknose SCS landings in the southern
Atlantic sub-region would be $355,759
($284,120 + $71,639). There are
approximately 64 directed shark permit
holders in the southern Atlantic subregion. Based on this number of
individual permits, the total average
annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would
be $5,559 per vessel. Overall,
Alternative C7 would lead to the same
quota in the northern Atlantic subregion, as compared to current landings
under the higher base quota. However,
NMFS does not prefer this alternative at
this time, because it would cap the nonblacknose SCS commercial at a higher
level than Alternative C6 and does not
account for the uncertainties in the
SEDAR 34 bonnethead stock
assessment.
Gulf of Mexico Regional and SubRegional Quotas
Alternative D1, the No Action
alternative, would maintain the current
regional quotas and quota linkages in
the Gulf of Mexico region and continue
to allow harvest of hammerhead sharks
throughout the entire Gulf of Mexico
region. This alternative would likely
result in short-term neutral direct
socioeconomic impacts, because shark
fishermen would continue to operate
under current conditions, with shark
fishermen continuing to fish at similar
rates. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel
prices, the annual gross revenues for the
entire fleet from blacktip, aggregated
LCS, and hammerhead shark meat in the
Gulf of Mexico region would be
$440,365, while the shark fins would be
$554,750. Thus, total average annual
gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated
LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2666
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the Gulf of Mexico region would be
$995,115 ($440,365 + $554,750), which
would be 21 percent of the entire shark
fishery. There are approximately 90
directed shark permit holders in the
entire Gulf of Mexico, which would
result in average annual gross revenues
for all LCS species of $11,057 per vessel.
For the non-blacknose SCS and
blacknose shark landings, the annual
gross revenues for the entire fleet from
the meat would be $35,757, while the
shark fins would be $58,495. The total
average annual gross revenues for nonblacknose SCS and blacknose shark
landings in the Atlantic region were
$94,252 ($35,757 + $58,495), which is 2
percent of the entire revenue for the
shark fishery. For the approximately 90
directed shark permit holders in the
entire Gulf of Mexico, this which would
result in average annual gross revenues
for all SCS species of $1,047 per vessel.
However, this alternative would likely
result in long-term minor adverse
socioeconomic impacts. Negative
impacts would be partly due to the
continued negative effects of federal and
state regulations related to shark finning
and sale of shark fins, which have
resulted in declining ex-vessel prices of
fins since 2010, as well as continued
changes in shark fishery management
measures. In addition, under the No
Action alternative the non-blacknose
SCS quota would not be modified. This
could potentially lead to negative
socioeconomic impacts, since the nonblacknose SCS quotas could be
increased based on the most recent
stock assessment, as described in
alternatives D5–D7 below. Additionally,
under the current regulations,
differences in regional season opening
dates would impact the availability of
quota remaining in the Gulf of Mexico.
Florida fishermen begin fishing the LCS
quotas in the beginning of the year,
because sharks are in local waters. This
puts Louisiana fishermen at a slight
economic disadvantage, as they prefer to
delay fishing in order to maximize
fishing efforts during the religious
holiday Lent when prices for shark meat
are higher. Indirect short-term
socioeconomic impacts resulting from
any of the actions in Alternative D1
would likely be neutral. The measures
would maintain the status quo with
respect to shark landings and fishing
effort. However, this alternative would
likely result in indirect long-term minor
adverse socioeconomic impacts.
Negative socioeconomic impacts and
decreased revenues associated with
financial hardships experienced by
fishermen within the Gulf of Mexico
shark fisheries would carry over to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
dealers and supporting businesses they
regularly interact with. In addition, this
alternative would not achieve the goals
of this rulemaking of increasing
management flexibility to adapt to the
changing needs of the Atlantic shark
fisheries.
Alternative D2 would apportion the
Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for
blacktip, aggregated LCS and
hammerhead sharks along 89°00′ W
Longitude into western and eastern subregional quotas. Establishing subregional quotas would provide
flexibility in seasonal openings within
the Gulf of Mexico region. Different
seasonal openings within sub-regions
would allow fishermen to maximize
their fishing effort during periods when
sharks migrate into local waters or
during periods when sales of shark meat
are increased (e.g., in Louisiana, during
Lent). Drawing the regional boundary
between the eastern and western subregions along 89°00′ W Long. (between
fishing catch areas 11 and 12), would
better geographically separate the
fishing activities of the major fishing
constituents in the Gulf of Mexico
region (i.e., Louisiana and Florida), in
contrast to the boundary in Alternative
D3, as the general range of Louisiana
fishermen does not extend beyond this
boundary. Under this alternative, the
eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region
would receive 94.1 mt dw in blacktip
shark, 87.0 mt dw in aggregated LCS,
and 25.2 mt dw in hammerhead shark
quotas. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel
prices, the annual gross revenues for
blacktip, aggregated LCS, and
hammerhead shark meat in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be
$203,868, while the shark fins would be
$80,259. Thus, total average annual
gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated
LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in
the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region
would be $284,127 ($203,868 +
$80,259). There are approximately 66
directed shark permit holders in the
eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region.
Based on this number of individual
directed permits, the total average
annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would
be $4,305 per vessel. When compared to
the other alternatives, the eastern Gulf
of Mexico sub-region would have minor
beneficial socioeconomic impacts under
Alternative D2, because this alternative
would result in the highest total average
annual gross revenues for blacktip,
aggregated LCS, and hammerhead
sharks.
In the western Gulf of Mexico subregion under alternative D2, fishermen
would receive 65.7 percent of the total
blacktip quota (180.2 mt dw; 397,239 lb
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
dw), 42.5 percent of the total aggregated
LCS quota (64.2 mt dw; 141,877 lb dw),
and 0.6 percent of the total hammerhead
shark quota (0.1 mt dw; 334 lb dw).
Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the
annual gross revenues for blacktip,
aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark
meat in the eastern Gulf of Mexico subregion would be $236,497, while the
shark fins would be $95,213. Thus, total
average annual gross revenues for
blacktip, aggregated LCS, and
hammerhead shark landings in the
eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region
would be $331,710 ($236,497 +
$95,213). There are approximately 24
directed shark permit holders in the
western Gulf of Mexico sub-region.
Based on this number of individual
directed permits, the total average
annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would
be $13,821 per vessel. The slight
increase in the blacktip shark subregional quota in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico sub-region, in comparison to
Alternative D3, would result in direct
short-term minor beneficial
socioeconomic impacts. Over time,
increased revenues gained from the
additional blacktip shark sub-regional
quota, as well as increased revenue
associated with fishermen maximizing
their fishing effort during periods when
sharks migrate into local waters, could
ultimately have direct long-term
moderate beneficial socioeconomic
impacts. Under this alternative the
quota for hammerheads sharks in the
western sub-region would be 0.1 mt dw,
which would be very difficult for NMFS
to monitor and control, possibly leading
to the quota being overharvested. This
small hammerhead quota could lead to
the aggregated LCS season being closed
very early, and thus fishermen losing
revenues if they are not able to land the
aggregated LCS species. Therefore,
because this alternative does not take
into consideration the quota linkages
between aggregated LCS and
hammerhead sharks, NMFS does not
prefer this alternative.
Alternative D3 would apportion the
Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for
blacktip, aggregated LCS, and
hammerhead sharks along 88°00′ W
Longitude into western and eastern subregional quotas. Under this alternative,
the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region
would receive 31.2 percent of the total
blacktip quota (85.6 mt dw; 188,643 lb
dw), 53.2 percent of the total aggregated
LCS quota (80.4 mt dw; 177,596 lb dw),
and 99.4 percent of the total
hammerhead shark quota (25.2 mt dw;
55,388 lb dw). Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and
hammerhead shark meat in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be
$188,961, while the shark fins would be
$74,417. Thus, total average annual
gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated
LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in
the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region
would be $263,378 ($188,961 +
$74,417). There are approximately 66
directed shark permit holders in the
eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region.
Based on this number of individual
directed permits, the total average
annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would
be $3,991 per vessel. When compared to
the other alternatives, the eastern Gulf
of Mexico sub-region would have minor
adverse socioeconomic impacts under
Alternative D3, because this alternative
would result in lower total average
annual gross revenues for blacktip,
aggregated LCS, and hammerhead
sharks.
In the western Gulf of Mexico subregion under alternative D3, fishermen
would receive 68.8 percent of the total
blacktip quota (188.7 mt dw; 415,983 lb
dw), 46.8 percent of the total aggregated
LCS quota (70.8 mt dw; 156,232 lb dw),
and 0.6 percent of the total hammerhead
shark quota (0.1 mt dw; 334 lb dw).
Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the
annual gross revenues for blacktip,
aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark
meat in the western Gulf of Mexico subregion would be $251,403, while the
shark fins would be $101,055. Thus,
total average annual gross revenues for
blacktip, aggregated LCS, and
hammerhead shark landings in the
western Gulf of Mexico sub-region
would be $352,458 ($251,403 +
$101,055). There are approximately 24
directed shark permit holders in the
western Gulf of Mexico sub-region.
Based on this number of individual
directed permits, the total average
annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would
be $14,686 per vessel. This alternative
would have minor beneficial economic
impacts for the western Gulf of Mexico
sub-region fishermen when compared to
other alternatives, because fishermen in
the sub-region would receive a higher
quota. This alternative would likely
result in direct short-term minor
beneficial impacts, and ultimately direct
long-term moderate beneficial impacts.
However, drawing the regional
boundary between the eastern and
western Gulf of Mexico sub-regions
along 88°00′ W Long. (i.e., between
fishing catch areas 10 and 11) may not
reflect geographic differences in the
distribution of major fishing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
constituents in the region (i.e.,
Louisiana and Florida) as well as the
boundary in Alternative D2, as
fishermen from Louisiana would be
encouraged to fish in waters farther east
than they historically occupied, which
could create future user group conflicts
within the region. Despite beneficial
economic impacts associated with this
alternative, NMFS does not prefer this
alternative at this time because the split
in Alternative D2 may reflect the
distribution of fishing constituents
better.
Alternative D4, one of the preferred
alternatives, would apportion the Gulf
of Mexico regional quotas for blacktip,
aggregated LCS, and hammerhead
sharks along 89°00′ W Longitude into
western and eastern sub-regional quotas
and would maintain LCS quota linkages
in the eastern sub-region of the Gulf of
Mexico region, remove the LCS quota
linkages in the western sub-region of the
Gulf of Mexico region, and prohibit the
harvest of hammerhead sharks in the
western Gulf of Mexico sub-region.
Removing quota linkages within the
western Gulf of Mexico sub-region
would have beneficial socioeconomic
impacts, as fishermen active in this
region would be able to continuing
fishing for aggregated LCS sharks
without fishing activities in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico sub-region dictating the
timing of the aggregated LCS fishery
closure. Economic advantages
associated with removing quota
linkages, allowing the western Gulf of
Mexico sub-region to land a larger
number of aggregated LCS, would
outweigh the income lost from
prohibiting landings of hammerhead
sharks, particularly considering that the
estimated hammerhead quota for the
western Gulf of Mexico would be 0.1 mt
dw. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico subregion, no socioeconomic impacts are
expected by maintaining the quota
linkages already in place for LCS. Thus,
Alternative D4 would likely result in
both direct and indirect short- and longterm neutral socioeconomic impacts
across the entire Gulf of Mexico region,
as increased revenues associated with
increased flexibility with season
opening dates as a result of
implementing sub-regional quotas
would be countered by potential losses
from prohibiting landings of
hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf
of Mexico. Because Alternative D4
would have neutral economic impacts,
but still maintain the objective of
providing flexibility of implementation
of shark management measures through
the region, NMFS prefers this
alternative at this time.
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2667
Under Alternative D5, NMFS would
establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of
931.9 mt dw and maintain the current
base annual quota of 45.5 mt dw
(100,317 lb dw). This alternative would
likely result in moderate adverse
socioeconomic impacts, due to the
quota being capped at a lower level than
what the SEDAR 34 stock assessment
indicated was sustainable. Based on the
2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross
revenues for non-blacknose SCS and
blacknose shark meat in the Gulf of
Mexico region would be $32,101, while
the shark fins would be $55,977. Thus,
total average annual gross revenues for
non-blacknose SCS landings would be
$88,078 ($32,101 + $55,977). There are
approximately 90 directed shark permit
holders in the entire Gulf of Mexico,
which would result in average annual
gross revenues for all SCS species of
$979 per vessel. When compared to
Alternative D6, the preferred alternative,
this alternative would result in $44,040
($132,118¥$88,078) less in total gross
annual revenue, or $489 less per vessel.
In addition, the smaller quota under
Alternative D5 could lead to shorter
seasons, when compared to 2013
landings. For these reasons, NMFS does
not prefer this alternative at this time.
Under Alternative D6, the preferred
alternative, NMFS would establish a
non-blacknose SCS TAC of 954.7 mt dw
and increase the quota to the current
adjusted annual quota of 68.3 mt dw
(150,476 lb dw). Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues
for non-blacknose SCS meat in the Gulf
of Mexico region would be $48,152,
while the shark fins would be $83,966.
Thus, total average annual gross
revenues for non-blacknose SCS
landings would be $132,118 ($48,152 +
$83,966). There are approximately 90
directed shark permit holders in the
entire Gulf of Mexico, which would
result in average annual gross revenues
for all SCS species of $1,468 per vessel.
NMFS prefers this alternative at this
time because it would increase the nonblacknose SCS commercial quota above
the current base quota and provide
fishermen with additional opportunities
to profit from landing non-blacknose
SCS in the Gulf of Mexico region,
compared to the quota considered under
Alternative D5, while also taking into
account uncertainties in SEDAR 34, as
well as the unknown status of
bonnethead sharks.
Under Alternative D7, would
establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of
1,064.9 mt dw and increase the quota to
178.5 mt dw (393,566 lb dw). Under this
alternative, the commercial quota would
be increased to twice the current 2013
landings, which is almost four times the
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
2668
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
current base annual quota for nonblacknose SCS. Based on the 2013 exvessel prices, the annual gross revenues
for non-blacknose SCS meat in the Gulf
of Mexico region would be $125,941,
while the shark fins would be $219,610.
Thus, total average annual gross
revenues for non-blacknose SCS
landings would be $345,551 ($125,941 +
$219,610). There are approximately 90
directed shark permit holders in the
entire Gulf of Mexico, which would
result in average annual gross revenues
for all LCS species of $3,839 per vessel.
The quota considered under this
alternative would result in an increase
of $213,433 ($345,551 ¥ $132,118) in
annual revenues or an increase of
$2,371 per vessel, over the quota
considered in preferred Alternative D6.
However, as mentioned above, NMFS
anticipates that it is not likely that
fishermen would economically benefit
from the non-blacknose SCS quota
considered under Alternative D7, since
the linkage with the blacknose quota
would be maintained, and therefore the
non-blacknose SCS fishery would likely
be closed based on the blacknose quota
before the full non-blacknose SCS quota
could be landed. For this reason, and
because there are uncertainties
associated with the SEDAR 34 stock
assessments, NMFS does not prefer this
alternative at this time.
Upgrading Restrictions
Under Alternative E1, the No Action
alternative, NMFS would maintain the
current upgrading restrictions in place
for shark limited access permit holders.
Thus, shark limited access permit
holders would continue to be limited to
upgrading a vessel or transferring a
permit only if it does not result in an
increase in horsepower of more than 20
percent or an increase of more than 10
percent overall, gross registered
tonnage, or net tonnage from the vessel
baseline specifications. The No Action
alternative could result in direct and
indirect minor adverse socioeconomic
impacts if fishermen continue to be
constrained by limits on horsepower
and vessel size increases. Fishermen
would also be limited by these
upgrading restrictions when buying,
selling, or transferring shark directed
limited access permits. Because the No
Action alternative provides fishermen
with less operational flexibility, NMFS
does not prefer this alternative at this
time.
Alternative E2, a preferred alternative,
would remove current upgrading
restrictions for shark directed permit
holders. Eliminating these restrictions
would have short- and long-term minor
beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
it would allow fishermen to buy, sell, or
transfer shark directed permits without
worrying about the increase in
horsepower of more than 20 percent or
an increase of more than 10 percent in
length overall, gross registered tonnage,
or net tonnage from the vessel baseline
specifications. In addition, the upgrade
restriction for shark permit holders was
implemented to match the upgrading
restrictions for the Northeast
multispecies permits. NMFS is currently
considering removing the upgrading
restrictions for the Northeast
multispecies permits, and if those are
removed, then removing the upgrading
restrictions for shark directed permit
holders could aid in maintaining
consistency for fishermen who hold
multiple permits.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels,
Penalties, Permits and fees, Commercial
retention limits, Quotas.
Dated: January 12, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY
MIGRATORY SPECIES
1. The authority citation for part 635
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C.
1801 et seq.
2. In § 635.2, the ‘‘Management
group’’ definition is added in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
■
§ 635.2
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Management group in regard to sharks
means a group of shark species that are
combined for quota management
purposes. A management group may be
split by region and sub-region, as
defined at § 635.27(b)(1). A fishery for a
management group can be opened or
closed as a whole or at the regional or
sub-regional levels. Sharks have the
following management groups: Atlantic
aggregated LCS, Gulf of Mexico
aggregated LCS, research LCS,
hammerhead, Atlantic non-blacknose
SCS, Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS,
and pelagic sharks other than blue or
porbeagle.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. In § 635.4, revise paragraphs (l)(2)(i)
and the introductory text of paragraph
(l)(2)(ii), and remove paragraph (l)(2)(x)
to read as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
§ 635.4
Permits and fees.
*
*
*
*
*
(l) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Subject to the restrictions on
upgrading the harvesting capacity of
permitted vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(ii)
of this section, as applicable, and to the
limitations on ownership of permitted
vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this
section, an owner may transfer a shark
or swordfish LAP or an Atlantic Tunas
Longline category permit to another
vessel that he or she owns or to another
person. Directed handgear LAPs for
swordfish may be transferred to another
vessel or to another person but only for
use with handgear and subject to the
upgrading restrictions in paragraph
(l)(2)(ii) of this section and the
limitations on ownership of permitted
vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this
section. Shark directed and incidental
LAPs and swordfish incidental LAPs are
not subject to the upgrading
requirements specified in paragraph
(l)(2)(ii) of this section. Shark and
swordfish incidental LAPs are not
subject to the ownership requirements
specified in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this
section.
(ii) An owner may upgrade a vessel
with a swordfish LAP or an Atlantic
Tunas Longline category permit, or
transfer such permit to another vessel or
to another person, and be eligible to
retain or renew such permit only if the
upgrade or transfer does not result in an
increase in horsepower of more than 20
percent or an increase of more than 10
percent in length overall, gross
registered tonnage, or net tonnage from
the vessel baseline specifications. A
vessel owner that concurrently held a
directed or incidental swordfish LAP, a
directed or incidental shark LAP, and an
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit
as of August 6, 2007, is eligible to
increase the vessel size or transfer the
permits to another vessel as long as any
increase in the three specifications of
vessel size (length overall, gross
registered tonnage, and net tonnage)
does not exceed 35 percent of the vessel
baseline specifications, as defined in
paragraph (l)(2)(ii)(A) of this section;
horsepower for those eligible vessels is
not limited for purposes of vessel
upgrades or permit transfers.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. In § 635.24, paragraphs (a)(2) and
(3) are revised and paragraphs (a)(4)(v)
and (vi) are added to read as follows:
§ 635.24 Commercial retention limits for
sharks, swordfish, and BAYS tunas.
*
*
*
(a) * * *
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
(2) Except as noted in paragraphs
(a)(4)(iv) through (vi) of this section, a
person who owns or operates a vessel
that has been issued a directed LAP for
sharks and does not have a valid shark
research permit, or a person who owns
or operates a vessel that has been issued
a directed LAP for sharks and that has
been issued a shark research permit but
does not have a NMFS-approved
observer on board, may retain, possess,
or land no more than 55 LCS other than
sandbar sharks per vessel per trip if the
respective LCS management group(s) is
open per §§ 635.27 and 635.28. Such
persons may not retain, possess, or land
sandbar sharks.
(3) Except as noted in paragraphs
(a)(4)(iv) through (vi) of this section, a
person who owns or operates a vessel
that has been issued an incidental LAP
for sharks and does not have a valid
shark research permit, or a person who
owns or operates a vessel that has been
issued an incidental LAP for sharks and
that has been issued a valid shark
research permit but does not have a
NMFS-approved observer on board, may
retain, possess, or land no more than 3
LCS other than sandbar sharks per
vessel per trip if the respective LCS
management group(s) is open per
§§ 635.27 and 635.28. Such persons may
not retain, possess, or land sandbar
sharks.
(4) * * *
(v) A person who owns or operates a
vessel that has been issued a shark LAP
and is operating in the western Gulf of
Mexico sub-region, as defined at
§ 635.27(b)(1)(ii), may not retain,
possess, land, or sell any hammerhead
sharks.
(vi) A person who owns or operates a
vessel that has been issued a shark LAP
and is operating in the northern Atlantic
sub-region, as defined at
§ 635.27(b)(1)(i), may not retain,
possess, land, or sell any blacknose
sharks.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. In § 635.27:
■ a. Paragraph (b)(1) as proposed to be
amended at 79 FR 46217, August 7,
2014, is further revised; and
■ b. Paragraph (b)(2) introductory text,
and paragraphs (b)(2)(i), (b)(2)(ii),
(b)(2)(iii) introductory text, and (b)(3)
introductory text are revised to read as
follows:
§ 635.27
Quotas.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Sharks. (1) Commercial quotas.
The commercial quotas for sharks
specified in this section apply to all
sharks harvested from the management
unit. Sharks taken and landed
commercially from state waters, even by
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
fishermen without Federal shark
permits, must be counted against the
appropriate commercial quota. Any of
the base quotas listed below, including
regional and/or sub-regional base
quotas, may be adjusted per paragraph
(b)(2) of this section. Any sharks landed
commercially as ‘‘unclassified’’ will be
counted against the appropriate quota
based on the species composition
calculated from data collected by
observers on non-research trips and/or
dealer data. No prohibited sharks,
including parts or pieces of prohibited
sharks, which are listed under heading
D of Table 1 of Appendix A to this part,
may be retained except as authorized
under § 635.32. For the purposes of this
section, the boundary between the Gulf
of Mexico region and the Atlantic region
is defined as a line beginning on the east
coast of Florida at the mainland at
25°20.4′ N. lat, proceeding due east.
Any water and land to the south and
west of that boundary is considered, for
the purposes of quota monitoring and
setting of quotas, to be within the Gulf
of Mexico region. Any water and land
to the north and east of that boundary,
for the purposes of quota monitoring
and setting of quotas, is considered to be
within the Atlantic region.
(i) Commercial quotas that apply only
in the Atlantic Region. The commercial
quotas specified in this paragraph
(b)(1)(i) apply only to those species of
sharks and management groups within
the management unit that were
harvested in the Atlantic region, as
defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section. The Atlantic region is further
split into northern and southern
Atlantic sub-regions along 34°00′ N. lat.,
which is near Wilmington, North
Carolina. All fish harvested within the
Atlantic region in fishing catch areas in
waters north of 34°00′ N. lat. are
considered to be from the northern
Atlantic sub-region, and all fish
harvested within the Atlantic region in
fishing catch areas in waters south of
34°00′ N. lat. are considered to be from
the southern Atlantic sub-region.
(A) Atlantic aggregated LCS. The base
annual commercial quota for Atlantic
aggregated LCS is 168.9 mt dw. The
northern Atlantic sub-region base quota
is 33.3 mt dw (19.7% of the Atlantic
region base quota) and southern Atlantic
sub-region base quota is 135.6 mt dw
(80.3% of the Atlantic region base
quota).
(B) Atlantic hammerhead sharks. The
regional base annual commercial quota
for hammerhead sharks caught in the
Atlantic region is 27.1 mt dw (51.7% of
the overall base quota established in
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section). The
northern Atlantic sub-region base quota
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2669
is 9.2 mt dw (34.1% of this regional base
quota) and southern Atlantic sub-region
base quota is 17.9 mt dw (65.9% of this
regional base quota).
(C) Atlantic non-blacknose SCS. The
base annual commercial quota for
Atlantic non-blacknose SCS is 176.1 mt
dw. The northern Atlantic sub-region
base quota is 53.4 mt dw (30.3% of the
Atlantic region base quota) and southern
Atlantic sub-region base quota is 123.7
mt dw (69.7% of the Atlantic region
base quota).
(D) Atlantic blacknose sharks. The
base annual commercial quota for
Atlantic blacknose sharks is 18 mt dw.
The northern Atlantic sub-region base
quota is 0.0 mt dw (0.0% of the Atlantic
region base quota) and southern Atlantic
sub-region base quota is 16.7 mt dw
(95.5% of the Atlantic region base
quota).
(ii) Commercial quotas that apply
only in the Gulf of Mexico Region. The
commercial quotas specified in this
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) apply only to those
species of sharks and management
groups within the management unit that
were harvested in the Gulf of Mexico
region, as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section. The Gulf of Mexico region
is further split into western and eastern
Gulf of Mexico sub-regions by a
boundary that is drawn along 89°00′ W.
long., but that circumvents the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Breton National
Wildlife Refuge at 29°30′ N. lat., 89° W.
long.; then proceeds to 30°23′ N. lat.,
89° W. long.; before returning to 89°00’
W. long. All fish harvested within the
Gulf of Mexico region in fishing catch
areas in waters westward of 89°00′ W.
long. are considered to be from the
western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, and
all fish harvested within the Gulf of
Mexico region in fishing catch areas in
waters east of 89°00′ W. long., including
within the Caribbean Sea, are
considered to be from the eastern Gulf
of Mexico sub-region.
(A) Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS.
The base annual commercial quota for
Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS is 157.3
mt dw. The eastern Gulf of Mexico subregion base quota is 87.0 mt dw (57.5%
of the Gulf of Mexico region base quota)
and the western Gulf of Mexico subregion base quota is 64.2 mt dw (42.5%
of the Gulf of Mexico region base quota).
(B) Gulf of Mexico hammerhead
sharks. The regional base annual
commercial quota for hammerhead
sharks caught in the Gulf of Mexico
region is 25.3 mt dw (48.3% of the
overall base quota established in
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section). The
eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region base
quota is 25.2 mt dw (99.4% of this
regional base quota) and western Gulf of
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2670
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Mexico sub-region base quota is 0.0 mt
dw (0.0% of this regional base quota).
(C) Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks.
The base annual commercial quota for
Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks is 256.6
mt dw. The eastern Gulf of Mexico subregion base quota is 180.2 mt dw (34.3%
of the Gulf of Mexico region base quota)
and the western Gulf of Mexico subregion base quota is 94.1 mt dw (65.7%
of the Gulf of Mexico region base quota).
(D) Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose
SCS. The base annual commercial quota
for Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS is
68.3 mt dw. This base quota is not split
between the eastern and western Gulf of
Mexico sub-regions.
(E) Gulf of Mexico blacknose sharks.
The base annual commercial quota for
Gulf of Mexico blacknose sharks is 2.0
mt dw. This base quota is not split
between the eastern and western Gulf of
Mexico sub-regions.
(iii) Commercial quotas that apply in
all regions. The commercial quotas
specified in this section apply to any
sharks or management groups within
the management unit that were
harvested in either the Atlantic or Gulf
of Mexico regions.
(A) Sandbar sharks. The base annual
commercial quota for sandbar sharks is
75.7 mt dw. This quota, as adjusted per
paragragh (b)(2) of this section, is
available only to the owners of
commercial shark vessels that have been
issued a valid shark research permit and
that have a NMFS-approved observer
onboard.
(B) Research LCS. The base annual
commercial quota for Research LCS is
50 mt dw. This quota, as adjusted per
paragragh (b)(2) of this section, is
available only to the owners of
commercial shark vessels that have been
issued a valid shark research permit and
that have a NMFS-approved observer
onboard.
(C) Hammerhead sharks. The overall
base annual commercial quota for
hammerhead sharks is 52.4 mt dw. This
overall base quota is further split for
management purposes between the
regions defined in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)
and (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(D) Pelagic sharks. The base annual
commercial quotas for pelagic sharks are
273.0 mt dw for blue sharks, 1.7 mt dw
for porbeagle sharks, and 488.0 mt dw
for pelagic sharks other than blue sharks
or porbeagle sharks.
(E) Smoothhound sharks. The base
annual commercial quota for
smoothhound sharks is 1782.2 mt dw.
(2) Annual and inseason adjustments
of commercial quotas. NMFS will
publish in the Federal Register any
annual or inseason adjustments to the
base annual commercial overall,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
regional, or sub-regional quotas. No
quota will be available, and the fishery
will not open, until any adjustments are
published in the Federal Register and
effective. Within a fishing year or at the
start of a fishing year, NMFS may
transfer quotas between regions and
sub-regions of the same species or
management group, as appropriate,
based on the criteria in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) of this section.
(i) Annual overharvest adjustments.
(A) Adjustments of annual overall
and regional base quotas. Except as
noted in this section, if any of the
available commercial base or adjusted
overall quotas or regional quotas, as
described in this section, is exceeded in
any fishing year, NMFS will deduct an
amount equivalent to the overharvest(s)
from the base overall or regional quota
the following fishing year or, depending
on the level of overharvest(s), NMFS
may deduct from the overall or regional
base quota an amount equivalent to the
overharvest(s) spread over a number of
subsequent fishing years to a maximum
of five years. If the blue shark quota is
exceeded, NMFS will reduce the annual
commercial quota for pelagic sharks by
the amount that the blue shark quota is
exceeded prior to the start of the next
fishing year or, depending on the level
of overharvest(s), deduct an amount
equivalent to the overharvest(s) spread
over a number of subsequent fishing
years to a maximum of five years.
(B) Adjustments to sub-regional
quotas. If a sub-regional quota is
exceeded but the regional quota is not,
NMFS will not reduce the annual
regional base quota the following year
and sub-regional quotas will be
determined as specified in paragraph
(b)(1) of this section. If both a subregional quota(s) and the regional quota
are exceeded, for each sub-region in
which an overharvest occurred, NMFS
will deduct an amount equivalent to
that sub-region’s overharvest from that
sub-region’s quota the following fishing
year or, depending on the level of
overharvest, NMFS may deduct from
that sub-region’s base quota an amount
equivalent to the overharvest spread
over a number of subsequent fishing
years to a maximum of five years.
(C) Adjustments to quotas when the
species or management group is split
into regions or sub-regions for
management purposes and not as a
result of a stock assessment. If a regional
quota for a species that is split into
regions for management purposes only
is exceeded but the overall quota is not,
NMFS will not reduce the overall base
quota for that species or management
group the following year and the
regional quota will be determined as
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section. If both a regional quota(s) and
the overall quota is exceeded, for each
region in which an overharvest
occurred, NMFS will deduct an amount
equivalent to that region’s overharvest
from that region’s quota the following
fishing year or, depending on the level
of overharvest(s), NMFS may deduct
from that region’s base quota an amount
equivalent to the overharvest spread
over a number of subsequent fishing
years to a maximum of five years. If a
sub-regional quota of a species or
management group that is split into
regions for management purposes only
is exceeded, NMFS will follow the
procedures specified in paragraph
(b)(2)(i)(B) of this section.
(ii) Annual underharvest adjustments.
Except as noted in this paragraph, if any
of the annual base or adjusted quotas,
including regional quotas, as described
in this section is not harvested, NMFS
may adjust the annual base quota,
including regional quotas, depending on
the status of the stock or management
group. If a species or a specific species
within a management group is declared
to be overfished, to have overfishing
occurring, or to have an unknown
status, NMFS may not adjust the
following fishing year’s base quota,
including regional quota, for any
underharvest, and the following fishing
year’s quota will be equal to the base
annual quota. If the species or all
species in a management group is not
declared to be overfished, to have
overfishing occurring, or to have an
unknown status, NMFS may increase
the following year’s base annual quota,
including regional quota, by an
equivalent amount of the underharvest
up to 50 percent above the base annual
quota. Except as noted in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) of this section, underharvests
are not transferable between regions,
species, and/or management groups.
(iii) Determination criteria for
inseason and annual quota transfers
between regions and sub-regions.
Inseason or annual quota transfers of
quotas between regions or sub-regions
may be conducted only for species or
management groups where the species
are the same between regions or subregions and the quota is split between
regions or sub-regions for management
purposes and not as a result of a stock
assessment. Before making any inseason
or annual quota transfer between
regions or sub-regions, NMFS will
consider the following criteria and other
relevant factors:
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Opening commercial fishing
season criteria. NMFS will file with the
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Office of the Federal Register for
publication notification of the opening
dates of the overall, regional, and subregional shark fisheries for each species
and management group. Before making
any decisions, NMFS would consider
the following criteria and other relevant
factors in establishing the opening
dates:
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. In § 635.28, paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
§ 635.28
Fishery closures.
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Sharks. (1) A shark fishery that
meets any of the following
circumstances is closed and subject to
the requirements of § 635.28(b)(6):
(i) No overall, regional, and/or subregional quota, as applicable, is
specified at § 635.27(b)(1);
(ii) The overall, regional, and/or subregional quota, as applicable, specified
at § 635.27(b)(1) is zero;
(iii) After accounting for overharvests
as specified at § 635.27(b)(2), the
overall, regional, and/or sub-regional
quota, as applicable, is determined to be
zero or close to zero and NMFS has
closed the fishery by publication of a
notice in the Federal Register;
(iv) The species is a prohibited
species as listed under Table 1 of
Appendix A of this part; or
(v) Landings of the species and/or
management group meet the
requirements specified in § 635.28(b)(2)
through (5) and NMFS has closed the
fishery by publication of a notice in the
Federal Register.
(2) Non-linked quotas: If the overall,
regional, and/or sub-regional quota of a
species or management group is not
linked to another species or
management group and that overall,
regional, and/or sub-regional quota is
available as specified by a publication
in the Federal Register, then that
overall, regional, and/or sub-regional
commercial fishery for the shark species
or management group will open as
specified in § 635.27(b). When NMFS
calculates that the overall, regional,
and/or sub-regional landings for a shark
species and/or management group, as
specified in § 635.27(b)(1), has reached
or is projected to reach 80 percent of the
available overall, regional, and/or subregional quota as specified in
§ 635.27(b)(1), NMFS will file for
publication with the Office of the
Federal Register a notice of an overall,
regional, and/or sub-regional closure, as
applicable, for that shark species and/or
shark management group that will be
effective no fewer than 5 days from date
of filing. From the effective date and
time of the closure until NMFS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:45 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
announces, via the publication of a
notice in the Federal Register, that
additional overall, regional, and/or subregional quota is available and the
season is reopened, the overall, regional,
and/or sub-regional fisheries for that
shark species or management group are
closed, even across fishing years.
(3) Linked Quotas: As specified in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the
overall, regional, and/or sub-regional
quotas of some shark species and/or
management groups are linked to the
overall, regional, and/or sub-regional
quotas of other shark species and/or
management groups. For each pair of
linked species and/or management
groups, if the overall, regional, and/or
sub-regional quota specified in
§ 635.27(b)(1) is available for both of the
linked species and/or management
groups as specified by a publication in
the Federal Register, then the overall,
regional, and/or sub-regional
commercial fishery for both of the
linked species and/or management
groups will open as specified in
§ 635.27(b)(1). When NMFS calculates
that the overall, regional, and/or subregional landings for any species and/or
management group of a linked group
has reached or is projected to reach 80
percent of the available overall,
regional, and/or sub-regional quota as
specified in § 635.27(b)(1), NMFS will
file for publication with the Office of the
Federal Register a notice of an overall,
regional, and/or sub-regional closure for
all of the species and/or management
groups in that linked group that will be
effective no fewer than 5 days from date
of filing. From the effective date and
time of the closure until NMFS
announces, via the publication of a
notice in the Federal Register, that
additional overall, regional, and/or subregional quota is available and the
season is reopened, the overall, regional,
and/or sub-regional fishery for all
species and/or management groups in
that linked group is closed, even across
fishing years.
(4) The quotas of the following
species and/or management groups are
linked:
(i) Northern Atlantic hammerhead
sharks and northern Atlantic aggregated
LCS.
(ii) Southern Atlantic hammerhead
sharks and southern Atlantic aggregated
LCS.
(iii) Eastern Gulf of Mexico
hammerhead sharks and eastern Gulf of
Mexico aggregated LCS.
(iv) Southern Atlantic blacknose
sharks and southern Atlantic nonblacknose SCS.
(v) Gulf of Mexico blacknose sharks
and Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2671
(5) NMFS may close the regional or
sub-regional Gulf of Mexico blacktip
shark management group(s) before
landings reach, or are expected to reach,
80 percent of the quota. Before taking
any inseason action, NMFS will
consider the following criteria and other
relevant factors:
(i) Estimated Gulf of Mexico blacktip
shark season length based on available
sub-regional quotas and average subregional weekly catch rates during the
current fishing year and from previous
years;
(ii) Variations in regional and/or subregional seasonal distribution,
abundance, or migratory patterns of
blacktip sharks, hammerhead sharks,
and aggregated LCS based on scientific
and fishery information;
(iii) Effects of the adjustment on
accomplishing the objectives of the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP and its
amendments;
(iv) The amount of remaining shark
quotas in the relevant sub-regions, to
date, based on dealer or other reports;
and,
(v) The regional and/or sub-regional
catch rates of the relevant shark species
or management group(s), to date, based
on dealer or other reports.
(6) When the overall, regional, and/or
sub-regional fishery for a shark species
and/or management group is closed, a
fishing vessel, issued a Federal Atlantic
commercial shark permit pursuant to
§ 635.4, may not possess, retain, land, or
sell a shark of that species and/or
management group that was caught
within the closed region or sub-region,
except under the conditions specified in
§ 635.22(a) and (c) or if the vessel
possesses a valid shark research permit
under § 635.32, a NMFS-approved
observer is onboard, and the sandbar
and/or Research LCS fishery, as
applicable, is open. A shark dealer,
issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4, may
not purchase or receive a shark of that
species and/or management group that
was caught within the closed region or
sub-region from a vessel issued a
Federal Atlantic commercial shark
permit, except that a permitted shark
dealer or processor may possess sharks
that were caught in the closed region or
sub-region that were harvested, offloaded, and sold, traded, or bartered,
prior to the effective date of the closure
and were held in storage. Under a
closure for a shark species or
management group, a shark dealer,
issued a permit pursuant to § 635.4 may,
in accordance with State regulations,
purchase or receive a shark of that
species or management group if the
shark was harvested, off-loaded, and
sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
2672
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
that fishes only in State waters and that
has not been issued a Federal Atlantic
commercial shark permit, HMS Angling
permit, or HMS Charter/Headboat
permit pursuant to § 635.4.
Additionally, under an overall, a
regional, or a sub-regional closure for a
shark species and/or management
group, a shark dealer, issued a permit
pursuant to § 635.4, may purchase or
receive a shark of that species group if
the sandbar or Research LCS fishery, as
applicable, is open and the shark was
harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded,
or bartered from a vessel issued a valid
shark research permit (per § 635.32) that
had a NMFS-approved observer on
board during the trip the shark was
collected.
(7) If the Atlantic Tunas Longline
category quota is closed as specified in
paragraph (a)(4) of this section, vessels
that have pelagic longline gear on board
cannot possess, retain, land, or sell
sharks.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 7. In § 635.31, paragraphs (c)(1) and
(4) are revised to read as follows:
§ 635.31 Restrictions on sale and
purchase.
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) Persons that own or operate a
vessel that possesses, retains, or lands a
shark from the management unit may
sell such shark only if the vessel has a
valid commercial shark permit issued
under this part. Persons may possess,
retain, land, and sell a shark only to a
federally-permitted dealer and only
when the fishery for that species,
management group, region, and/or subregion has not been closed, as specified
in § 635.28(b). Persons that own or
operate a vessel that has pelagic
longline gear onboard can possess,
retain, land, and sell a shark only if the
Atlantic Tunas Longline category has
not been closed, as specified in
§ 635.28(a).
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Only dealers who have a valid
Federal Atlantic shark dealer permit and
who have submitted reports to NMFS
according to reporting requirements of
§ 635.5(b)(1)(ii) may first receive a shark
from an owner or operator of a vessel
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
that has, or is required to have, a valid
Federal Atlantic commercial shark
permit issued under this part. Dealers
may purchase a shark only from an
owner or operator of a vessel who has
a valid commercial shark permit issued
under this part, except that dealers may
purchase a shark from an owner or
operator of a vessel who does not have
a Federal Atlantic commercial shark
permit if that vessel fishes exclusively
in state waters and does not possess a
HMS Angling permit or HMS Charter/
Headboat permit pursuant to § 635.4.
Atlantic shark dealers may purchase a
sandbar shark only from an owner or
operator of a vessel who has a valid
shark research permit and who had a
NMFS-approved observer onboard the
vessel for the trip in which the sandbar
shark was collected. Atlantic shark
dealers may purchase a shark from an
owner or operator of a fishing vessel
who has a valid commercial shark
permit issued under this part only when
the fishery for that species, management
group, region, and/or sub-region has not
been closed, as specified in § 635.28(b).
Atlantic shark dealers may first receive
a shark from a vessel that has pelagic
longline gear onboard only if the
Atlantic Tunas Longline category has
not been closed, as specified in
§ 635.28(a).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 8. In § 635.34, paragraphs (a) and (b)
are revised to read as follows:
§ 635.34 Adjustment of management
measures.
(a) NMFS may adjust the IBQ shares
or resultant allocations for bluefin tuna,
as specified in § 635.15; catch limits for
bluefin tuna, as specified in § 635.23;
the overall, regional, and/or subregional quotas for bluefin tuna, sharks,
swordfish, and northern albacore tuna
as specified in § 635.27; the retention
limits for sharks, as specified at
§ 635.24; the regional retention limits
for Swordfish General Commercial
permit holders, as specified at § 635.24;
the marlin landing limit, as specified in
§ 635.27(d); and the minimum sizes for
Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, and
roundscale spearfish as specified in
§ 635.20.
(b) In accordance with the framework
procedures in the 2006 Consolidated
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
HMS FMP, NMFS may establish or
modify for species or species groups of
Atlantic HMS the following
management measures: Maximum
sustainable yield or optimum yield
based on the latest stock assessment or
updates in the SAFE report; domestic
quotas; recreational and commercial
retention limits, including target catch
requirements; size limits; fishing years
or fishing seasons; shark fishing regions,
or regional and/or sub-regional quotas;
species in the management unit and the
specification of the species groups to
which they belong; species in the
prohibited shark species group;
classification system within shark
species groups; permitting and reporting
requirements; workshop requirements;
the IBQ shares or resultant allocations
for bluefin tuna; administration of the
IBQ program (including but not limited
to requirements pertaining to leasing of
IBQ allocations, regional or minimum
IBQ share requirements, IBQ share caps
(individual or by category), permanent
sale of shares, NED IBQ rules, etc.);
time/area restrictions; allocations among
user groups; gear prohibitions,
modifications, or use restriction; effort
restrictions; observer coverage
requirements; EM requirements;
essential fish habitat; and actions to
implement ICCAT recommendations, as
appropriate.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 9. In § 635.71, paragraphs (d)(3) and
(d)(4) are revised to read as follows:
§ 635.71
Prohibitions
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(3) Retain, possess, or land a shark of
a species or management group when
the fishery for that species, management
group, region, and/or sub-region is
closed, as specified in § 635.28(b).
(4) Sell or purchase a shark of a
species or management group when the
fishery for that species, management
group, region, and/or sub-region is
closed, as specified in § 635.28(b).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. In Appendix A to Part 635, Section
B of Table 1 is revised to read as
follows:
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
2673
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 12 / Tuesday, January 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Appendix A to Part 635—Species
Tables
TABLE 1 OF APPENDIX A TO PART 635—OCEANIC SHARKS
*
*
*
*
B. Small Coastal Sharks.
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Atlantic sharpnose, Rhizoprionodon terraenovae.
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico blacknose, Carcharhinus acronotus.
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico bonnethead, Sphyrna tiburo.
Finetooth, Carcharhinus isodon.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2015–00548 Filed 1–16–15; 8:45 am]
rljohnson on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:26 Jan 16, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\20JAP1.SGM
20JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 12 (Tuesday, January 20, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2648-2673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00548]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 635
[Docket No. 100825390-5012-02]
RIN 0648-BA17
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Large Coastal and Small
Coastal Atlantic Shark Management Measures
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would implement Draft Amendment 6 to the
2006 Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management
Plan (FMP). Management measures in this proposed rulemaking are
designed to respond to the problems facing Atlantic commercial shark
fisheries, such as commercial landings that exceed the quotas,
declining numbers of fishing permits since limited access was
implemented, complex regulations, derby fishing conditions due to small
quotas and short seasons, increasing numbers of regulatory discards,
and declining market prices. The primary goal of Amendment 6 to the
2006 Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 6) is to implement management
measures for the Atlantic shark fisheries that will achieve the
objectives of increasing management flexibility to adapt to the
changing needs of the Atlantic shark fisheries, and achieve optimum
yield while rebuilding overfished shark stocks and ending overfishing.
Specifically, this action proposes: Adjusting the large coastal sharks
(LCS) retention limit for shark directed Limited Access Permit (LAP)
holders; creating sub-regional quotas in the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico regions for LCS and small coastal sharks (SCS); modifying the
LCS and SCS quota linkages; establishing total allowable catches (TACs)
and adjusting quotas for non-blacknose SCS in the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico regions based on the results of the 2013 stock assessments for
Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks; and modifying upgrading
restrictions for shark permit holders. The proposed measures could
affect commercial shark fishermen fishing in the Atlantic Ocean
including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 3, 2015.
NMFS will hold 4 public hearings on Draft Amendment 6 and this
implementing proposed rule on February 17, February 18, February 23,
and February 26, 2015. NMFS will also hold an operator-assisted public
hearing via conference call and webinar for this proposed rule on March
25, 2015, from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. For specific locations, dates and times
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this document, identified by
NOAA-NMFS-2010-0188, by any one of the following methods:
Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public
comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2010-
[[Page 2649]]
0188, click the ``Comment Now'' icon, complete the required fields, and
enter or attach your comments.
Mail: Submit written comments to Margo Schulze-Haugen,
NMFS/SF1, 1315 East West Highway, National Marine Fisheries Service,
SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910.
Instructions: Please include the identifier NOAA-NMFS-2010-0188
when submitting comments. Comments sent by any other method, to any
other address or individual, or received after the close of the comment
period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part
of the public record and generally will be posted for public viewing on
www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information,
or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender
will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter
``N/A'' in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).
Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word,
Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.
NMFS will hold 4 public hearings and 1 conference call on this
proposed rule. NMFS will hold public hearings in St. Petersburg, FL;
Melbourne, FL; Belle Chasse, FL; and Manteo, NC; and via a public
conference call. For specific locations, dates and times see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
Copies of the supporting documents, including the draft
Environmental Assessment (EA), Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), and the 2006 Consolidated
Atlantic HMS FMP are available from the HMS Web site at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms/ or by contacting LeAnn Hogan at 301-427-
8503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LeAnn Hogan, Gu[yacute] DuBeck, Alexis
Jackson or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone: 301-427-8503, or by fax: 301-
713-1917.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Atlantic sharks are managed under the
authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the authority to issue regulations has
been delegated from the Secretary to the Assistant Administrator (AA)
for Fisheries, NOAA. On October 2, 2006, NMFS published in the Federal
Register (71 FR 58058) final regulations, effective November 1, 2006,
implementing the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which details management
measures for Atlantic HMS fisheries. The implementing regulations for
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments are at 50 CFR part
635. This proposed rule addresses implementation of Amendment 6.
NMFS began considering management measures for Amendment 6 in 2010
with the publication of an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPR) (75 FR 57235; September 10, 2010). The 2010 ANPR solicited
public comments on potential adjustments to regulations governing the
Atlantic shark fisheries to address several specific issues affecting
the management of those fisheries. In the ANPR, NMFS discussed that
since management of sharks began in 1993, there have been many changes
to the regulations and major rules, either through FMP amendments or
regulatory amendments, to respond to results of stock assessments,
changes in stock status, and other fishery fluctuations. Despite
modifications to the regulations and Amendments to the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP to respond to these issues, the Atlantic shark
fisheries continue to be faced with problems, such as commercial
landings that exceed the quotas, declining numbers of fishing permits
since limited access was implemented, complex regulations, derby
fishing conditions due to small quotas and short seasons, increasing
numbers of regulatory discards, and declining market prices. Rather
than continuing to react to these issues every year with a new
regulation, or every other year with a new FMP amendment, NMFS stated
that it wanted the regulations to be more proactive in management and
explore methods to establish more flexible regulations that would
consider the changing needs of the fisheries. More specifically, the
ANPR explored management ideas related to quota structure, permit
structure, and catch shares. NMFS held several public meetings
regarding the ANPR and received many comments.
Based on the comments received on the ANPR, on September 16, 2011,
NMFS published a Notice of Intent (NOI) (76 FR 57709) to prepare an FMP
Amendment that would consider catch shares for the Atlantic shark
fisheries. The NOI also established a control date for eligibility to
participate in a catch share program and announced the availability of
a white paper that explored potential design elements of a shark catch
share program. NMFS held several public meetings and received many
comments regarding the NOI.
In addition to the changes in Federal regulations, while NMFS has
been considering comments on the ANPR and the NOI, there have also been
changes in state shark management. Since 2010, several states have
passed legislation banning the possession, sale, trade, and
distribution of shark fins. In addition, the Atlantic States Marine
Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) recently made changes to the Atlantic
state shark management measures. The ASMFC Coastal Shark Board made the
decision to amend the Interstate Coastal Shark FMP to be consistent
with NMFS' recent changes in Amendment 5a, and they have expressed
their preference for NMFS to open the LCS management group in the
Atlantic region after July 1 each year. The Shark Board also approved
measures for each Atlantic state to implement a 12 percent fin-to-
carcass ratio for smooth dogfish, consistent with the 12 percent fin-
to-carcass ratio specified in the smooth dogfish-specific provisions of
the Shark Conservation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-348) (the SCA).
In addition to these state measures, there have been international
efforts to prohibit shark finning at sea, as well as campaigns targeted
at the shark fin soup markets. All of these efforts, including the U.S.
state shark fin possession bans, have impacted the market and demand
for shark fins. In addition, NMFS has seen a steady decline in ex-
vessel prices for shark fins in all regions since 2010.
In April 2014, NMFS released a Predraft for Amendment 6, providing
NMFS with the opportunity to obtain additional information and input
from HMS Advisory Panel (AP) members and HMS Consulting Parties
(Atlantic, Gulf, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, Marine
Fisheries Commissions, U.S. Coast Guard, and other State and Federal
Agency representatives) on potential alternatives prior to development
of the formal FMP Amendment and proposed rule. The Predraft explored
potential management options for the future management of the Atlantic
shark fisheries, taking into consideration comments received on the
ANPR and NOI.
Since issuing the ANPR, NOI, and Predraft, and after reviewing the
comments received, NMFS has continued to consider various ways to
address recurring issues and provide managers and fishermen with
increased flexibility, while maintaining conservation measures.
Additionally, there have continued to be changes in Federal and state
management of the Atlantic shark fisheries that have affected the
fishery and its communities. On May, 27 2014, NMFS published another
NOI announcing (1) its intent to prepare an Environmental
[[Page 2650]]
Assessment (EA) instead of an Environmental Impact Statement, and (2)
that the agency is moving away from the catch share concept for this
particular Amendment. Thus, the public should largely be aware of the
change in approach. Most recently, NMFS published a proposed rule (79
FR 46217; August 7, 2014) to implement draft Amendment 9 to the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP (Amendment 9), which considers management measures
in the smoothhound and shark fisheries. Regulations proposed in this
action would overlap and modify some regulations proposed in Amendment
9.
Atlantic Sharpnose and Bonnethead Sharks Stock Assessment
Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks were both previously
assessed in 2007 as part of the Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review
(SEDAR) process. At that time, the statuses of both species were
determined to be not overfished, with no overfishing occurring. These
species were assessed again in 2013 using ``standard'' assessments as
part of SEDAR 34. Standard assessments generally update previous
benchmark assessments with additional years of data and do not allow
for major changes; standard assessments typically can be completed in
approximately a year. On the first day of the face-to-face assessment
workshop meeting held for both species, the scientists determined that
the genetic information clearly indicated both species should be split
into a Gulf of Mexico stock and an Atlantic stock. However, because the
assessments had been scheduled as standard assessments as opposed to
benchmark assessments, the assessment process and timing would not
allow the scientists to make this change. Making such a change would
have required four benchmark assessments rather than two standard
assessments. It would have also required additional changes to the
format and structure of the data that had not been anticipated and
allowed for in the overall SEDAR schedule. Based on a request from
fishery managers to continue with the standard assessments at that
time, given that the previous assessments were over 5 years old and
updated scientific advice was needed, the scientists agreed to continue
with the standard assessment of both species as single stocks in order
to provide management advice on the potential status of the stocks.
Based on the results of SEDAR 34, NMFS decided to split the
Atlantic sharpnose shark species into two stocks--an Atlantic stock and
a Gulf of Mexico stock--and determined, based on the overall data for
the species as a whole, that the status of both stocks is not
overfished and no overfishing is occurring (79 FR 53024; September 5,
2014). With regards to bonnethead sharks, NMFS also decided to split
this stock into an Atlantic stock and a Gulf of Mexico stock, and
determined, based on the overall data for the species as a whole, that
the status of both bonnethead stocks is unknown (Id.). In this
rulemaking, NMFS considers implementing total allowable catches (TAC)
and commercial quotas for non-blacknose SCS (which is the management
group that both Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks are managed
in) in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions based on the results of
the SEDAR 34 assessment and while considering the results of the 2007
finetooth stock assessment.
NMFS prepared a draft EA, RIR, and IRFA to present and analyze
anticipated environmental, social, and economic impacts of each
alternative contained in this proposed rule. A summary of the
alternatives considered and related analyses are provided below. The
complete list of alternatives and related analyses are provided in the
draft EA/RIR/IRFA. A copy of the draft EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for this
proposed rule is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
Permit Stacking for Shark Directed LAP Holders
NMFS considered permit stacking in the 2010 ANPR and requested
public comments on this potential change to the shark permit structure.
A permit stacking system would allow commercial fishermen with multiple
shark LAPs to use them concurrently on one vessel, resulting in
aggregated, and thus higher, retention limits.
After analyzing the ecological and socioeconomic impacts of the
permit stacking alternatives in the shark fishery, NMFS currently
prefers the No Action alternative (Alternative A1) in this proposed
rule. The No Action alterative would maintain the current shark
directed LAP structure and would not implement permit stacking for
these permit holders. Under this preferred alternative, NMFS would
continue to allow only one directed LAP per vessel and thus one
retention limit. In the short- and long-term, this preferred
alternative is expected to have neutral direct ecological impacts on
LCS stocks. Shark fishermen would continue to be limited by the current
retention limit of 36 LCS per trip. By leaving the current permit
structure in place under this alternative, and because the LCS quotas
are not being modified in this action, it is likely that the No Action
alternative would have neutral short- and long-term ecological impacts
to the LCS stocks. With regards to socioeconomic impacts, the preferred
alternative would result in potential trip revenues of $1,166 (1,224 lb
of meat, 61 lb of fins) per vessel, assuming an ex-vessel price of
$0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins. Because current LCS quotas are being
maintained, NMFS anticipates neutral direct socioeconomic impacts in
the short-term and possibly minor adverse socioeconomic impacts in the
long-term, because if fishermen are unable to retain an increased
number of LCS per trip by stacking permits, the profitability of each
trip could decline over time, due to declining prices for shark
products and increasing prices for gas, bait and other associated
costs. NMFS believes that while permit stacking may have beneficial
socioeconomic impacts for those fishermen that already have multiple
directed shark LAPs or that could afford to buy additional permits,
permit stacking could possibly disadvantage those fishermen that are
unable to buy additional permits. Because the majority of fishermen in
the shark fishery have only one permit (in the Atlantic region, 130 of
the 136 shark directed permits have different owners; in the Gulf of
Mexico region, 73 of the 83 shark directed permits have different
owners), permit stacking would not benefit most shark fishermen in the
short-term, and it could possibly lead to inequity among directed shark
LAP holders. NMFS believes that an increase in LCS retention limits for
all directed LAP holders, as described in the Commercial Retention
Limits section below, would have greater socioeconomic benefits across
the entire shark fishery as a whole. Therefore, after considering the
impacts of the permit stacking alternatives, NMFS prefers the No Action
alternative to continue to allow only one directed LAP per vessel and
thus one retention limit in this proposed rulemaking.
NMFS also analyzed two other permit stacking alternatives in the
Draft EA. The first, Alternative A2, would allow fishermen to use a
maximum of 2 shark directed LAPs concurrently on one vessel, which
would result in aggregated, and thus higher, retention limits. Under
the current LCS retention limit of 36 LCS, this would mean that a
vessel with 2 stacked permits would have a LCS retention limit of 72
LCS per trip. Alternative A3 considers allowing fishermen to use a
maximum of 3 shark directed LAPs concurrently on one vessel, which
would result in aggregated, and thus higher, retention limits. Under
the current LCS retention
[[Page 2651]]
limit of 36 LCS, this would mean that a vessel with 3 stacked LAPs
would have a LCS retention limit of 108 LCS per trip. While these
alternatives could result in increased annual revenues for shark
directed LAP holders who currently own or could buy multiple LAPs, they
are not preferred at this time because they could possibly lead to
inequity among directed shark LAP holders. These alternatives would
have beneficial socioeconomic impacts only for those shark fishermen
that can afford to buy multiple shark permits, and thus would benefit
from a higher retention limit and higher revenues, whereas those shark
fishermen that cannot afford to buy a second or third directed shark
permit would be at a disadvantage, unable to economically benefit from
the higher retention limits. Given the way directed LAPs are currently
held within the shark fishery, NMFS believes that an increase in LCS
retention limits for all directed LAP holders, as described in the
Commercial Retention Limits section below, would have greater
socioeconomic benefits across the entire directed shark fishery as a
whole. Therefore, after considering the impacts of the permit stacking
alternatives, NMFS prefers the No Action alternative to continue to
allow only one directed LAP per vessel and thus one retention limit in
this proposed rulemaking.
Adjusting Commercial Retention Limits for Atlantic Shark Fisheries
The current retention limit of 36 LCS other than sandbar sharks was
established in Amendment 2 as part of the rebuilding plan for sandbar
sharks. As described in Amendment 2, the retention limit was
established by considering, among other things, how many sandbar sharks
would be discarded dead from the number of shark trips that were
expected to interact with sandbar sharks. Over the past few years, the
shark research fishery, which is the only part of the shark fisheries
that can land and sell sandbar sharks, has not been catching the full
sandbar research fishery quota. During the Predraft stage, NMFS
received extensive comments from commercial fishermen and Atlantic HMS
Advisory Panel members to consider adjusting the retention limits
instead of allowing commercial fishermen to land sandbar sharks outside
of the Atlantic shark research fishery. Thus, NMFS is considering
adjusting the commercial LCS retention limit for shark directed LAP
holders based on public comment.
The preferred alternative (Alternative B2) would increase the
retention limit for LCS in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions from
36 to a maximum of 55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per trip and reduce
the sandbar shark research fishery quota to 75.7 mt dw (166,826 lb dw).
To determine the impacts of this alternative, NMFS used the same
methodology used in Amendment 2 to calculate how many sandbar sharks
could potentially be discarded dead by vessels harvesting the 55 LCS
other than sandbar shark retention limit. Because harvesting additional
LCS per trip could result in additional sandbar sharks being discarded
dead, this additional mortality would be counted against the
unharvested sandbar shark research fishery quota, and NMFS would reduce
the sandbar shark research fishery quota accordingly. Thus overall,
NMFS does not expect the mortality of sandbar sharks to increase as a
result of the increased retention limit under this alternative. Since
the sandbar shark research fishery quota was previously analyzed in
Amendment 2, and would be reduced from 116.6 to 75.7 mt dw in order to
account for increased discards under a retention limit of 55 LCS per
trip, this alternative would have short- and long-term neutral
ecological impacts on sandbar sharks. In addition, the retention limit
increase under this preferred alternative would result in neutral
direct and indirect ecological impacts to the different LCS management
groups and species, because the quotas for the different LCS management
groups and species are not being modified in this rulemaking and
fishermen would continue to be limited by the total amount of LCS that
could be harvested, as well as by seasonal closures once 80 percent of
the quota is reached.
With regards to socioeconomic impacts, this new retention limit
would result in potential total trip revenues of $1,781 (1,870 lb of
meat, 94 lb of fins), assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for meat and
$6.05 for fins. The preferred alternative would have short- and long-
term direct and indirect minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts since
shark directed permit holders could land more sharks per trip when
compared to the current retention limit of 36 LCS per trip. The higher
retention limit is likely to make each trip more profitable for
fishermen, as well as more efficient, if they decide to take fewer
trips, and in turn save money on fuel, bait, and other associated
costs.
NMFS also analyzed three other retention limit alternatives that
are not preferred at this time. The No Action alternative (Alternative
B1) would maintain the current commercial LCS retention limit for
directed permit holders. While this would have short- and long-term
neutral ecological impacts on LCS fisheries, this option denies
commercial shark fishermen additional opportunities to harvest LCS
within their current quotas. Due to limited resources available to fund
observed trips, the sandbar quota in the research fishery has not been
fully harvested in recent years (e.g., 35 percent of the available
sandbar shark quota was landed in 2012). As such, NMFS believes that it
is appropriate to reconsider the LCS retention limit to ensure
commercial fishermen have an opportunity to harvest the available
various LCS management group quotas in an efficient manner. Another
alternative, Alternative B3, would increase the LCS retention limit to
a maximum of 72 LCS other than sandbar sharks per trip and reduce the
Atlantic shark research fishery quota to 63.0 mt dw (138,937 lb dw) for
sandbar sharks. The increased retention limit to 72 LCS other than
sandbar sharks per trip could result in 2,448 lb dw of LCS per trip.
While increasing the retention limit could result in more efficient and
profitable shark directed trips, this increased retention limit is
closer to the historical retention limit of 4,000 lb dw and could cause
fishermen to re-enter the fishery because of the higher retention
limit. If this occurs, these fishermen may not have fished under the
non-sandbar LCS regulations and might not be able to avoid catching
sandbar sharks while fishing for the other LCS species, which could
lead to increased discards and potential adverse impacts to sandbar
sharks. Also, if fishermen increase the number of hooks per set
substantially in order to catch the increased retention limit, they may
discard additional dead sharks as a result. This is more likely under
this alternative than under Alternative B2, given the larger difference
in retention limits, but, as would also be the case for Alternative B2,
it would likely only happen in the short term as fishermen modify their
fishing practices to the adjusted retention limit. Under Alternative
B3, the new sandbar shark quota could result in average annual lost
revenue of $112,508 for those fishermen participating in the shark
research fishery, but the income could be recouped by the increased
retention limit outside the shark research fishery. Finally, the last
alternative B4, considered increasing the LCS retention limit to a
maximum of 108 LCS other than sandbar sharks per trip and reducing the
Atlantic shark research fishery quota to 36.2 mt dw (79,878 lb dw) for
sandbar sharks. This alternative
[[Page 2652]]
would allow shark directed permit holders to retain three times as many
LCS per trip as the current retention limit. This retention limit would
result in potential trip revenues of $3,498 (3,672 lb of meat, 184 lb
of fins) per vessel, assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for meat and
$6.05 for fins, which is an increase of $2,332 per vessel per trip
compared to the status quo alternative. While a retention limit of 108
LCS per trip would make each trip more profitable and potentially
require fishermen to take fewer trips per year, this large increase in
the retention limit could cause a lot more permit holders to become
active, as described above. Thus, the profit of individual vessels
could decrease because LCS quotas could be caught at a faster rate, and
the fishing season could be shortened. Additionally, in order to
increase the retention limit to 108 LCS per trip, the sandbar shark
research quota would need to be reduced to an amount below what is
currently being landed in the shark research fishery, thereby reducing
the ability to carry out research for stock assessments and having
adverse impacts on fishermen in the shark research fishery, who would
lose quota, and thus revenue. As such, NMFS does not prefer this
alternative.
Atlantic Regional and Sub-Regional Quotas
Currently, NMFS manages several shark species and management group
quotas on a regional basis with quota linkages in the Atlantic region.
NMFS is proposing to implement sub-regional quotas for aggregated LCS,
hammerhead sharks, blacknose sharks, and non-blacknose SCS management
groups in the Atlantic region. Implementing sub-regional quotas would
help alleviate some of the tensions between fishermen in certain states
due to varying preferences for season opening dates and differences in
regional shark availability. Additionally, sub-regional quotas could
facilitate greater fishing accountability for these shark management
groups within sub-regions, and also provide for extended fishing
seasons in some sub-regions. In order to implement sub-regional quotas
in the Atlantic region, NMFS is considering a number of measures, such
as apportioning landings to sub-regions based on historical landings,
adjusting linkages between certain management groups within sub-
regions, and establishing commercial quotas and TACs for non-blacknose
SCS based on results of the recent stock assessment, SEDAR 34.
NMFS considered several factors when calculating sub-regional
quotas. It is important to consider the potential impact of early
seasonal closures on historical landings by region over time. For
example, the non-blacknose SCS and blacknose fisheries closed on
November 2, 2010, September 30, 2013, and July 28, 2014, thereby
reducing fishing opportunities for fishermen in the northern Atlantic
area in those years, because sharks tend to be more available later in
the year in the northern Atlantic area, whereas they tend to be
available year-round in the southern Atlantic area. Conversely, in
years where NMFS established opening dates later in the year (e.g.,
July 15 opening date for Aggregated LCS in 2010 through 2012),
fishermen in the southern Atlantic area may have reduced fishing
opportunities. During the Predraft stage and at the September 2014 HMS
AP meeting, some constituents also expressed concerns about how
regional differences in how shark carcasses are dressed may impact the
magnitude of shark landings reported in the Atlantic Coastal
Cooperative Statistics Program (ACCSP), and thus the amount of quota
that may be allocated to each sub-region. ACCSP dealer reports indicate
differences in how fishermen land sharks. Dealers in some states report
dressed sharks with carcass gutted, head on, and tail on, while others
report dressed sharks with carcass gutted, head off, and tails off
(i.e., shark cores). However, observer data and port agents indicate
that sharks are landed with their heads off regardless of region.
Additionally, dealers cannot indicate ``heads on'' in electronic dealer
reporting forms. Because observer observations suggest that sharks are
landed with ``heads off,'' and since all types of dressed shark
carcasses are included in landings that are counted towards the
commercial quotas, NMFS has not adjusted landings estimates to account
for differences in dressed weight for the sub-regional quota
calculations. Finally, at the September 2014 HMS AP meeting, AP members
expressed concern about using latitude and longitude lines associated
with the federal fishing catch areas to define sub-regions in the
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico, instead of the state line between North
Carolina and South Carolina in the Atlantic and the state line between
Mississippi and Alabama in the Gulf of Mexico because fishermen in each
state wanted to ensure that all their historical landings would
ultimately contribute to their allotted sub-regional quota. However,
after taking into consideration the HMS AP's comments, NMFS is
considering using the latitude and longitude lines associated with
fishing catch areas rather than state lines. Using the fishing catch
area lines (i.e., latitude and longitude lines) would provide for more
effective monitoring of quotas and more accurate reporting, as
fishermen are currently required to report landings by catch area. NMFS
has also determined that there would be minimal differences (0-1.9%) in
the allocation of quota to each sub-region whether using state lines
versus latitude and longitude lines.
Due to the variability in the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark
fisheries between 2008 and 2013, and various impacts of seasonal
closures and changes to regulations and fishery management groups that
did not impact one region more than another, NMFS calculated the sub-
regional quotas based on total landings during this time period.
Unlike the calculations for aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks,
the data used to calculate non-blacknose SCS and blacknose shark quotas
would start after 2010 because SCS fisheries management changed in 2010
under Amendment 3 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, in which NMFS
created a separate blacknose shark quota and linked the quota to the
non-blacknose SCS quota. NMFS used ACCSP landings data from 2011 and
2012 to calculate SCS sub-regional quotas in Alternatives C2, C3 and
C4. These years were used because they are years where the SCS
fisheries were open year-round and sub-regional allocations would not
be impacted by early closures; this approach was supported by some
members of the HMS AP at the September 2014 meeting.
The two preferred alternatives are Alternatives C4 and C6.
Alternative C4 would apportion the base annual quotas for the Atlantic
LCS and SCS management groups into northern and southern sub-regional
quotas, with the boundary between the northern and southern Atlantic
sub-regions drawn along 34[deg]00' N. Latitude, based on historical
landings percentages. The preferred alternative would also maintain the
non-blacknose SCS and blacknose quota linkages in the southern Atlantic
sub-region, eliminate the linkage between blacknose and non-blacknose
SCS in the northern Atlantic sub-region, and prohibit the harvest and
landings of blacknose sharks in the northern Atlantic sub-region. The
preferred alternatives do not consider removing linkages between all
remaining species and management groups for several reasons. Removing
linkages between these management groups would require an adjustment in
[[Page 2653]]
quotas in order to account for potential interactions and mortalities,
and could result in an increase in regulatory discards. Additionally,
there are specific reasons for maintaining linkages, as described in
the FMP amendments that established them. For example, as described in
Amendment 5a, the link between the aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark
management groups was established to end overfishing and rebuild
overfished stocks. To date, the closure of these management groups in
the Atlantic region has been the result of harvesting the aggregated
LCS quota. As described in Amendment 3 and 5a for the link between non-
blacknose SCS and blacknose sharks, the linking of quotas of species
that are often caught together on the same set or trip can prevent
incidental catch of sharks in a closed fishery as bycatch in other
directed shark fisheries, possibly resulting in mortality and negating
some of the conservation benefit of quota closures. The non-blacknose
SCS quota preferred under this alternative would be split into northern
and southern sub-regional quotas based on landings percentages, as
described under Alternative C4 in the Draft EA. Sub-regional quotas for
the preferred alternatives, based on percentages of landings
apportioned to each sub-region, are outlined for Atlantic LCS and SCS
in Figure 1. In addition, any overharvest of the overall regional base
quota would be accounted for in the next fishing season and would
affect the sub-region(s) that caused the overharvest. For example, if a
northern sub-region quota was overharvested and that caused the overall
regional base quota to be exceeded, then the amount overharvested by
the northern sub-region would be deducted from the northern sub-
region's base quota and not the southern sub-region's base quota, the
following fishing season. However, if a sub-region's quota is
overharvested but the overall regional quota is not exceeded, then no
overharvest would be deducted from either sub-region the following
fishing season. In regards to underharvest of the overall regional base
quota, if the species or all species in a management group is not
declared to be overfished, to have overfishing occurring, or to have an
unknown status, NMFS may increase the following year's base annual
quota, including regional quota, by an equivalent amount of the
underharvest up to 50 percent above the base annual quota. For example,
if the northern sub-region's base quota is underharvested and the
southern sub-region's base quota is fully harvested, in the following
year the amount underharvested by the northern sub-region would be
equally distributed between the sub-regions and added to the northern
and southern sub-region's base quotas. If there is underharvest of the
overall regional base quota and a species' status is unknown,
overfished, or overfishing is occurring, NMFS would not carry over the
underharvest to the following year's base annual quota.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JA15.000
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Preferred Alternative C4 would likely result in direct and indirect
short- and long-term neutral ecological impacts across the Atlantic
region. The preferred
[[Page 2654]]
sub-regional quotas would have no impact on the current level of
fishing pressure, catch rates or distribution of fishing effort, but
instead represent an administrative change in how quotas are monitored
throughout the Atlantic region. Because sub-regional quotas are
estimated from historical landings, and thus based on typical fishing
activity within sub-regions, there would be no expected ecological
differences in how fishermen from the various Atlantic states interact
with LCS and SCS. Differences between sub-regions in whether linkages
were maintained, however, would have varying ecological impacts. In the
northern Atlantic sub-region, due to difficulties associated with
managing a small quota of 0.8 mt dw, harvest of blacknose sharks would
be prohibited. Prohibiting harvest of blacknose in the northern
Atlantic sub-region, would reduce the likelihood of overharvesting
blacknose sharks by quickly exceeding the quota, and eliminate the need
to monitor a small quota. However, in the southern Atlantic sub-region,
no changes would be made in the existing quota linkages between
blacknose and non-blacknose SCS, so, neutral ecological impacts on SCS
would be expected, since current conditions would be maintained.
Across the entire Atlantic region, preferred alternative C4 would
likely result in both direct short- and long-term moderate beneficial
socioeconomic impacts. Removing quota linkages in the northern Atlantic
region, in combination with apportioning the Atlantic regional quota at
34[deg]00' N. Lat., would allow fishermen to maximize their fishing
effort, and thereby maximize revenue, during periods when sharks
migrate into local waters or when regional time/area closures are not
in place. Removing quota linkages within the northern Atlantic sub-
region would have beneficial impacts, as increased revenues from
increased landings would continue to accrue with each fishing year.
Active fishermen in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be able to
continue fishing for non-blacknose SCS without the fishing activities
in the southern Atlantic sub-region, where the majority of blacknose
sharks are landed, impacting the timing of the non-blacknose SCS
fishery closure. Economic advantages associated with removing quota
linkages, allowing the northern Atlantic sub-region to land a larger
number of non-blacknose SCS, would outweigh the income lost from
prohibiting landings of blacknose sharks ($1,750).
The other preferred alternative, Alternative C6, would establish an
Atlantic non-blacknose SCS TAC of 401.3 mt dw and maintain the 2014
base annual commercial quota of 176.1 mt dw (388,222 lb dw). For this
alternative, NMFS used the current Atlantic non-blacknose SCS
commercial base annual quota of 176.1 mt dw to determine the new
Atlantic TAC for this management group. The proposed TAC is calculated
by summing the sources of mortality for Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead,
and finetooth sharks (recreational landings, commercial discards, which
includes estimates of shrimp trawl discards, and research set-aside
mortality) from the Atlantic region and adding the current commercial
base annual quota (176.1 mt dw). The proposed Atlantic non-blacknose
SCS TAC and commercial quota takes into account all sources of
mortality for Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and finetooth sharks and
maintains the 2014 commercial base annual quota. In addition, no
underharvest of the non-blacknose SCS quota in the Atlantic region
would be carried forward to the next fishing season because the status
of the bonnethead shark stock within the non-blacknose SCS management
group is ``unknown''. Thus, because this non-blacknose SCS TAC and
commercial quota takes into account all sources of mortality for both
species, keeps fishing mortality capped at current levels, does not
increase interactions with blacknose sharks, and accounts for the
unknown status of Atlantic bonnethead sharks, NMFS believes that
Alternative C6 would have direct and indirect short- and long-term
neutral ecological impacts to the Atlantic non-blacknose SCS.
With regards to socioeconomic impacts of preferred Alternative C6,
because this alternative would maintain the non-blacknose SCS
commercial quota, it is likely to have short-term neutral socioeconomic
impacts. Recent non-blacknose SCS landings have been below 176.1, thus,
this commercial quota could allow for increased landings and additional
revenue if the entire quota is caught, which could have beneficial
socioeconomic impacts. However, since the proposed commercial quota of
176.1 mt dw would not be adjusted for underharvests due to the unknown
status of bonnethead sharks, the fishermen participating in this
fishery would be capped at a lower quota than is possible in the
current non-blacknose SCS fisheries if there is underharvest,
potentially leading to long-term minor adverse socioeconomic impacts.
NMFS does not expect fishing effort to dramatically increase for non-
blacknose SCS in the southern region of the Atlantic, since this
fishery would continue to be limited by blacknose shark landings and
the linkage between these two groups. Preferred Alternative C6 would
maintain fishing mortality at current levels and would not have
unnecessary adverse socioeconomic impacts.
Cumulatively, Alternatives C4 and C6 would have positive impacts on
the current state of shark fisheries in the Atlantic Region.
Implementing the northern and southern sub-regional quotas proposed in
Alternative C4 would allow fishermen to maximize their fishing effort
during periods when sharks migrate into local waters or when regional
time/area closures are not in effect. Additionally, Alternative C4
would provide increased flexibility in the application of shark
management measures throughout the Atlantic region, without having any
adverse economic or ecological consequences. The non-blacknose SCS
commercial quota under preferred Alternative C6 would continue to allow
fishermen to land these species at current levels, while maintaining
the Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead stocks at sustainable levels. It
more accurately reflects the status of Atlantic sharpnose and
bonnethead sharks and considers the sources of mortality for all three
non-blacknose SCS. Therefore, because of the neutral ecological impacts
expected to shark species as well as non-target, incidental species and
bycatch, and the moderately beneficial socioeconomic impacts expected
by these combined measures, NMFS prefers these alternatives at this
time.
NMFS also analyzed five other alternatives related to Atlantic sub-
regional quotas that are not preferred at this time. Alternative C1,
the No Action alternative, would not change the current commercial
quota management in the Atlantic shark fisheries. Alternative C2 would
apportion the Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and SCS along 33[deg]00'
N. Latitude (approximately at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina) into
northern and southern sub-regional quotas, while maintaining all
current quota linkages. Alternative C3 would apportion the Atlantic
regional quotas for LCS and SCS along 34[deg]00' N. Latitude
(approximately at Wilmington, North Carolina) into northern and
southern sub-regional quotas, while maintaining all current quota
linkages. Alternative C5 would establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of
177.3 mt dw and reduce the non-blacknose SCS commercial quota to 128 mt
dw (282,238 lb dw), based on the results of the 2013 assessment for
bonnethead sharks. Alternative C7 would establish a non-blacknose SCS
[[Page 2655]]
TAC of 489.3 mt dw and increase the commercial quota to 264.1 mt dw
(582,333 lb dw), which is equal to the 2014 adjusted non-blacknose SCS
quota. While some of these alternatives share some similar components
with the preferred alternatives, NMFS does not prefer the remaining
alternatives at this time for a variety of reasons. Alternative C1, the
status quo alternative, does not address some of the issues facing the
Atlantic shark fisheries and the current purpose of Amendment 6 to
increase flexibility for shark fishermen. While neutral ecological
impacts on Atlantic shark species and non-target species are
anticipated from Alternatives C2 and C3, they do not take into
consideration quota linkages between non-blacknose SCS and blacknose
sharks. Under Alternative C5, the non-blacknose SCS TAC and commercial
quota are limited by the results of the bonnethead shark stock
assessment and do not take the results of the Atlantic sharpnose stock
assessment or the status of finetooth sharks into account. Finally,
Alternative C7 would cap the non-blacknose SCS commercial quota at a
higher level than Alternative C6 and does not account for the
uncertainties in the SEDAR 34 bonnethead stock assessment.
Gulf of Mexico Regional and Sub-Regional Quotas
Similar to management measures considered in the Atlantic region,
NMFS is also considering implementing sub-regional quotas for shark
management groups in the Gulf of Mexico region. The two preferred
alternatives are Alternative D4 and D6. Alternative D4 would apportion
the base annual commercial quotas for the Gulf of Mexico LCS management
groups into eastern and western sub-regional quotas along 89[deg]00' W
Longitude, based on historical landings percentages (see Discussion in
section 2.4 of Draft EA). It would also maintain the linkage between
aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-
region, eliminate the linkage between aggregated LCS and hammerhead
sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, and prohibit the
harvest and landings of hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico
sub-region. NMFS would maintain linkages between the remaining
management groups. Removing linkages between the additional management
groups would require an adjustment in quotas in order to account for
potential interactions and mortalities, and could result in an increase
in regulatory discards. The western sub-regional quota for hammerhead
sharks would be 0 mt dw. Sub-regional quotas for LCS, based on
percentages of landings apportioned to each sub-region, are outlined
for the Gulf of Mexico LCS in Figure 2. As described above in the
Atlantic regional and sub-regional quotas section, any overharvest of
the overall regional base quota would be deducted from the sub-
region(s) that caused the overharvest. However, if a sub-region's quota
is overharvested but the overall regional quota is not exceeded, then
no overharvest would be deducted from either sub-region the following
fishing season. In addition, in cases where carry over is allowed, any
underharvest of the overall regional base quota would be equally
distributed to both sub-regions in the next fishing season, unless the
status of the species or one of the species in the management group is
unknown, overfished, or overfishing is occurring, in which case, NMFS
would not carry over the underharvest to the following year's base
annual quota.
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
[[Page 2656]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20JA15.001
BILLING CODE 3510-22-C
Preferred Alternative D4 would likely result in both direct and
indirect short- and long-term neutral ecological impacts on LCS within
the western and eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-regions. The preferred sub-
regional LCS quotas would have no impact on the current level of
fishing pressure, catch rates or distribution of fishing effort since
current LCS quotas are being maintained, but instead represents an
administrative change in how quotas are monitored throughout the Gulf
of Mexico region. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region, no changes
would be made in the existing quota linkages between aggregated LCS and
hammerhead sharks, which would likely result in neutral ecological
impacts, since current conditions would be maintained. In contrast, in
the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, quota linkages would be removed
between aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks. While quota linkages
mitigate incidental mortality of species caught together, only 0.6
percent of hammerhead shark landings in the Gulf of Mexico region can
be attributed to fishing activities in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-
region. In the western Gulf of Mexico region, due to the difficulties
associated with managing a small quota of 0.1 mt dw, harvest of
hammerhead sharks would be prohibited. Prohibiting harvest of
hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico would reduce the
likelihood of overharvesting the hammerhead shark quota by quickly
exceeding a small quota, and eliminate the need to monitor a small
quota. Because landings of hammerhead in the western Gulf of Mexico are
minimal, Alternative D4 would still likely result in neutral ecological
impacts on LCS within the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region.
Alternative D4 would likely result in both direct and indirect
short- and long-term neutral socioeconomic impacts across the entire
Gulf of Mexico region, as increased revenues associated with increased
flexibility with season opening dates as a result of implementing sub-
regional quotas would be countered by potential losses from prohibiting
landings of hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico. Removing
quota linkages within the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region would have
beneficial socioeconomic impacts, as fishermen active in this region
would be able to continue fishing for aggregated LCS without fishing
activities in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region determining the
timing of the aggregated LCS fishery closure. Economic advantages
associated with removing quota linkages, allowing the western Gulf of
Mexico sub-region to continue to land a larger number of aggregated
LCS, would offset any potential lost income from prohibiting landings
of hammerhead shark. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region, no
socioeconomic impacts are expected by maintaining the quota linkages
already in place for LCS.
The other preferred alternative, Alternative D6, would establish a
Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS TAC of 954.7 mt dw and increase the
commercial quota in the Gulf of Mexico region to the 2014 adjusted
annual quota of 68.3 mt dw (150,476 lb dw). This TAC is calculated by
summing the sources of mortality for Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead,
and finetooth sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region
[[Page 2657]]
(recreational landings, commercial discards, and research set-aside
mortality) and adding the 2014 adjusted annual quota of 68.3 mt dw.
This non-blacknose SCS TAC and commercial quota takes into account all
sources of mortality for Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and finetooth
sharks and maintains current quota levels, due to uncertainty with the
SEDAR 34 stock assessment and comments from the stock assessment peer
reviewers, who expressed concern that bonnethead sharks were not split
into two different stocks and analyzed in a manner that is similar to
what was done with Atlantic sharpnose sharks. In addition, there is
uncertainty about the data and life history information for finetooth
sharks, so NMFS would prefer to take a relatively conservative approach
with finetooth sharks and not increase landings substantially until a
new stock assessment is complete. The commercial quota under
Alternative D6 reflects the current fishing effort and pressure in the
Gulf of Mexico for non-blacknose SCS. Under Alternative D6, the
commercial quota and TAC would not result in any changes in current
fishing effort or catch rates of non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf of
Mexico. With anticipated fishing activities remaining the same, no
increases in potential bycatch or increased interactions with non-
target, incidentally caught species are expected. Thus, the preferred
Alternative D6, would likely result in short- and long-term minor
beneficial ecological impacts on non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf of
Mexico region because the alternative maintains the quota at the
present level, which is below the quota projected in the stock
assessment, and interactions with blacknose sharks would remain the
same.
Alternative D6 would result in both direct and indirect short- and
long-term neutral to minor adverse socioeconomic impacts because it
would increase the commercial quota above the current base non-
blacknose SCS quota, providing fishermen with additional opportunities
to profit from landing non-blacknose SCS in the Gulf of Mexico region,
while keeping interactions with blacknose sharks at current levels, as
quota linkages would be maintained. Given current financial
difficulties faced by fishermen, associated with declining ex-vessel
prices and restrictions on the sale of shark fins, the beneficial
socioeconomic impacts of increasing the annual quota by 12.8 mt dw from
the current base quota would likely be minimal. In addition, the
proposed commercial quota of 68.3 mt dw could have minor adverse
impacts since 2013 non-blacknose SCS landings exceeded this commercial
quota. However, due to the uncertainties in SEDAR 34 and given the
unknown stock status of bonnethead sharks in the Gulf of Mexico region
and uncertainty about the data and life history information for
finetooth sharks, NMFS believes that the proposed commercial quota
would continue to provide fishermen with sufficient opportunity to
harvest non-blacknose SCS, while maintaining the species at sustainable
levels.
Cumulatively, Alternatives D4 and D6 would have positive impacts on
the current state of shark fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico region.
Implementing the eastern and western sub-regional quotas in Alternative
D4 would allow fishermen to maximize their fishing effort during
periods when sharks migrate into local waters or periods when sales of
shark meat are increased, as well as providing increased revenue
associated with potentially landing a larger portion of their sub-
regional quota. Additionally, Alternative D4 would provide increased
flexibility in the application of shark management measures throughout
the Gulf of Mexico region, without having any adverse economic or
ecological consequences. Alternative D6 would allow for non-blacknose
SCS landings to be capped at the 2014 adjusted quota, and be
conservative based on uncertainties associated with the SEDAR 34 stock
assessment for bonnethead sharks and the SEDAR 13 stock assessment for
finetooth sharks. Because of the neutral ecological impacts expected to
shark species as well as non-target, incidental species and bycatch,
and the moderately beneficial economic impact expected by these
combined measures, NMFS prefers these alternatives at this time.
NMFS also analyzed five other alternatives related to Gulf of
Mexico sub-regional quotas that are not preferred at this time.
Alternative D1, the No Action alternative, would not change the current
quota management of the shark fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico.
Alternative D2 would apportion the Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for
LCS along 89[deg]00' W Longitude into eastern and western sub-regional
quotas, while maintaining current linkages. Alternative D3 would
apportion the Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for LCS along 88[deg]00' W
Longitude into eastern and western sub-regional quotas, while
maintaining current linkages. Alternative D5 would establish a non-
blacknose SCS TAC of 931.9 mt dw, based on current levels of catch, and
maintain the current commercial base annual non-blacknose SCS quota of
45.5 mt dw (100,317 lb dw). Alternative D7 would establish a non-
blacknose SCS TAC of 1,064.9 mt dw and increase the commercial quota to
twice the 2013 landings, which is 178.5 mt dw (393,566 lb dw). While
some of these alternatives share some similar components with the
preferred alternatives, NMFS does not prefer the remaining alternatives
at this time for a variety of reasons. Alternative D1, the status quo
alternative, does not address some of the issues facing the Atlantic
shark fisheries and the current purpose of Amendment 6 is to increase
flexibility for shark fishermen. Alternative D2 does not take into
consideration quota linkages between aggregated LCS and hammerhead
sharks. While Alternative D3 would have neutral ecological impacts on
Gulf of Mexico shark species and non-target species and have beneficial
economic impacts, the alternative is not preferred because the split in
Alternatives D2 and D4 may reflect the distribution of fishing
constituents better. The quota under Alternative D5 would not address
the financial difficulties faced by shark fishermen throughout the Gulf
of Mexico or improve the current state of the Gulf of Mexico shark
fisheries. Finally, the increased quota under Alternative D7 could
likely negatively impact blacknose sharks, which have an unknown
status, and would have an unknown impact on finetooth sharks.
Upgrading Restrictions
NMFS is considering removing the upgrading restrictions for shark
LAP holders in order to reduce restrictions for fishermen to buy and
sell shark permits. The current preferred alternative, Alternative E2,
would remove current upgrading restrictions for shark directed LAP
holders. Eliminating these restrictions would have short- and long-term
minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since it would allow fishermen
to buy, sell, or transfer shark directed permits without worrying about
the increase in horsepower of more than 20 percent or an increase of
more than 10 percent in length overall, gross registered tonnage, or
net tonnage from the vessel baseline specifications. In addition, the
upgrade restriction for shark permit holders was implemented in part to
match the upgrading restrictions for the Northeast multispecies
permits. NMFS is currently considering removing the upgrading
restrictions for the Northeast multispecies permits, and if those are
removed, then removing the upgrading restrictions for shark directed
LAP holders could aid in maintaining consistency for fishermen who hold
[[Page 2658]]
multiple permits. Removing the upgrading restrictions would not affect
the number of sharks being landed by vessels, as the amount of sharks
landed is determined by the retention limit and quotas, not the size of
the vessel. Thus, this preferred alternative would have short- and
long-term neutral ecological impacts since removing restrictions on
shark directed LAPs related to vessel specifications would have no
impacts on the biological status of Atlantic sharks. NMFS prefers this
alternative at this time because it would provide more flexibility for
current shark LAP holders by eliminating the upgrading restrictions for
shark directed permit holders, without having any negative ecological
effects, and potentially could maintain consistency with the Northeast
multispecies fisheries permit requirements, if those requirements also
are removed.
NMFS also analyzed the No Action alternative that would have
maintained the current upgrading restrictions related to horsepower,
length overall, gross registered tonnage and net tonnage. This
alternative would have neutral ecological and socioeconomic impacts,
since it would maintain the status quo. However, the No Action
alternative limits fishermen's ability to update vessels or engines to
more fuel-efficient ones and would provide less flexibility for
fishermen when buying, selling, or transferring LAPs than the preferred
alternative.
Public Hearings
Comments on this proposed rule may be submitted via https://www.regulations.gov, mail, or fax and comments may also be submitted at
a public hearing. NMFS solicits comments on this proposed rule by April
3, 2015. During the comment period, NMFS will hold 4 public hearings
and 1 conference call for this proposed rule. The hearing locations
will be physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for
sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed
to LeAnn Hogan or Gu[yacute] DuBeck at 301-427-8503, at least 7 days
prior to the meeting. NMFS has also asked to present information on the
proposed rule and draft Amendment 6 to the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico,
South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and New England Fishery Management
Councils and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions
at their meetings during the public comment period. Please see their
meeting notices for dates, times, and locations.
Table 1--Dates, Times, and Locations of Upcoming Public Hearings and Conference Call
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location contact
Venue Date/time Meeting locations information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Hearing..................... February 17, 2015, 5 St. Petersburg, FL.... National Marine Fisheries
p.m.-8 p.m. Service, Southeast
Regional Office, 263 13th
Avenue South, Saint
Petersburg, FL 33701.
Public Hearing..................... February 18, 2015, 5 Melbourne, FL......... Melbourne Public Library,
p.m.-8 p.m. 540 E. Fee Ave, Melbourne,
FL 32901.
Public Hearing..................... February 23, 2015, 5 Belle Chasse, LA...... Belle Chasse Branch
p.m.-8 p.m. Library, 8442 Louisiana
23, Belle Chasse, LA
70037.
Public Hearing..................... February 26, 2015, 5 Manteo, NC............ Commissioners Meeting Room,
p.m.-8 p.m. Dare County Administration
Building, 954 Marshall C.
Collins Dr., Manteo, NC
27954.
Conference call.................... March 25, 2015, 2 p.m.- ...................... To participate in
4 p.m. conference call, call:
(877) 918-1344 Passcode:
7371832.
To participate in webinar,
RSVP at: https://noaaevents2.webex.com/noaaevents2/onstage/g.php?d=998580989&t=a. A
confirmation email with
webinar log-in information
will be sent after RSVP is
registered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants at the public
hearings to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of each
public hearing, a representative of NMFS will explain the ground rules
(e.g., alcohol is prohibited from the hearing room; attendees will be
called to give their comments in the order in which they registered to
speak; each attendee will have an equal amount of time to speak; and
attendees should not interrupt one another). At the beginning of the
conference call, the moderator will explain how the conference call
will be conducted and how and when attendees can provide comments. The
NMFS representative will attempt to structure the meeting so that all
attending members of the public will be able to comment, if they so
choose, regardless of the controversial nature of the subject(s).
Attendees are expected to respect the ground rules, and, if they do
not, they may be asked to leave the hearing or may not be allowed to
speak during the conference call.
Classification
Pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant
Administrator has determined that the proposed rule is consistent with
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, other provisions of
the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further
consideration after public comment.
NMFS prepared a draft EA for Draft Amendment 6 that discusses the
impact on the environment that would occur as a result of this proposed
action. In this proposed action, NMFS is considering both adjusting
current management measures affecting the Atlantic shark fisheries, as
well as creating new measures that provide managers and fishermen with
operational and implementation flexibility. A copy of the EA is
available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as
required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The
IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule would have on
small entities if adopted. A description of the action, why it is being
considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the
beginning of this section in the preamble and in the SUMMARY section of
the preamble. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this
analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).
[[Page 2659]]
Section 603(b)(1) requires Agencies to describe the reasons why the
action is being considered. This proposed action is being considered to
implement management measures for the Atlantic shark fisheries that
will achieve the objectives of increasing management flexibility to
adapt to the changing needs of the Atlantic shark fisheries, and
achieve optimum yield while rebuilding overfished shark stocks and
ending overfishing. In September 2010, NMFS published an ANPR to
request public comment on potential adjustments to the regulations
governing the Atlantic shark fisheries to address specific issues
currently affecting management of the shark fisheries and to identify
specific goals for management of these fisheries in the future. Based
on the comments received on the ANPR, in September 2011, NMFS published
a NOI to prepare an FMP Amendment that would consider catch shares for
the Atlantic shark fisheries. Since the publication of the NOI, there
have been a few major changes in the Federal management of the Atlantic
shark fisheries, including the publication of Amendment 5a. In addition
to the changes in Federal regulations, there have also been changes in
state shark management, such as the shark fin possession prohibitions.
In considering comments received on the ANPR and NOI, in April 2014,
NMFS released a Predraft for Amendment 6 that included management
options for changes to regional quota and permit structures. On May, 27
2014, NMFS published another NOI announcing its intent to prepare an
Environmental Assessment (EA) instead of an Environmental Impact
Statement and that the agency is moving away from the catch share
concept for this particular Amendment. Since the publication of these
documents, and reviewing the comments received, NMFS has continued to
consider various ways to move forward to address recurring issues
through regulations that provide managers and fishermen with increased
management and implementation flexibility, while maintaining
conservation measures for the commercial shark fisheries.
Section 603(b)(2) requires Agencies to describe the objectives of
the proposed rule. The management goals and objectives of this action
are to implement management measures for the Atlantic shark fisheries
that will achieve the objectives of increasing management flexibility
to adapt to the changing needs of the Atlantic shark fisheries, and
achieve optimum yield while rebuilding overfished shark stocks and
ending overfishing. To achieve this purpose and need, and to comply
with existing statutes such as the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its
objectives, NMFS has identified the following objectives with regard to
this proposed action:
Increasing the efficiency in the LCS and SCS fisheries;
Maintaining or increasing equity across all shark
fishermen and regions;
Promoting economic viability for the shark fishery
participants;
Obtaining optimum yield from the LCS and SCS fisheries;
Maintaining or increasing management flexibility for the
shark fisheries;
Decreasing dead discards of sharks;
Continuing to rebuild overfished shark stocks; and
Preventing overfishing of shark stocks.
Section 603(b)(3) requires Agencies to provide an estimate of the
number of small entities to which the rule would apply. On June 12,
2014, the Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an interim final
rule revising the small business size standards for several industries
effective July 14, 2014 (79 FR 33467). The rule increased the size
standard from $19.0 to $20.5 million for finfish fishing, from $5 to
$5.5 million for shellfish fishing, and from $7.0 million to $7.5
million for other marine fishing, for-hire businesses, and marinas. Id.
at 33656, 33660, 33666.
NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this action in light of
the new size standards. Under the former, lower size standards, all
entities subject to this action were considered small entities, thus
they all would continue to be considered small under the new standards.
NMFS does not think that the new size standards affect analyses
prepared for this action and solicits public comment on the analyses in
light of the new size standards. Under these standards, NMFS considers
all Atlantic HMS permit holders subject to this rulemaking to be small
entities.
As discussed in Section 3.6.2 of the Draft EA for Amendment 6, the
proposed rule would apply to the 473 commercial shark permit holders in
the Atlantic shark fishery, based on an analysis of permit holders as
of September 2014. Of these permit holders, 214 have directed shark
permits and 259 hold incidental shark permits. Not all permit holders
are active in the fishery in any given year. Active directed permit
holders are defined as those with valid permits that landed one shark
based on HMS electronic dealer reports. Based on 2013 HMS electronic
dealer data, 68 shark directed permit holders were active in the
Atlantic and 22 shark directed permit holders were active in the Gulf
of Mexico. NMFS has determined that the proposed rule would not likely
affect any small governmental jurisdictions. More information regarding
the description of the fisheries affected and the categories and number
of permit holders can be found in Chapter 3 of the Draft EA for
Amendment 6.
Section 603(b)(4) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act requires
Agencies to describe any new reporting, recordkeeping, and other
compliance requirements. The action does not contain any new collection
of information, reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements.
Under section 603(b)(5) of the RFA, agencies must identify, to the
extent practicable, relevant Federal rules which duplicate, overlap, or
conflict with the proposed rule. Fishermen, dealers, and managers in
these fisheries must comply with a number of international agreements,
domestic laws, and other FMPs. These include the Magnuson-Stevens Act,
the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), the High Seas Fishing
Compliance Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act, the Paperwork
Reduction Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. This proposed rule
has been determined not to duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any
Federal rules.
On July 3, 2014, NMFS published a final rule that, among other
things, listed as threatened under the ESA a Central and Southwest
Atlantic Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of scalloped hammerhead
sharks (79 FR 38214). This DPS occurs within the boundary of Atlantic
HMS commercial and recreational fisheries, which are managed by NMFS.
On August 27, 2014, NMFS published a final rule that, among other
things, listed as threatened, or determined that threatened status was
still warranted for, seven species of corals that occur within the
boundary of Atlantic HMS fisheries.
On October 30, 2014, based on the new listings, NMFS requested
reinitiation of ESA section 7 consultation on the continued operation
and use of HMS gear types (bandit gear, bottom longline, buoy gear,
handline, and rod and reel) and associated fisheries management actions
in the 2006 Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP and its amendments. NMFS also
submitted a biological evaluation to support this request for
reinitiation of consultation and to provide supplemental information
for an
[[Page 2660]]
ongoing consultation for the pelagic longline fishery. Pending
completion of consultation, NMFS has determined that the ongoing
operation of the fisheries is consistent with existing biological
opinions and is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence or
result in an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources
which would foreclose formulation or implementation of any reasonable
and prudent alternative measures on the threatened Central and
Southwest DPS of scalloped hammerhead sharks or threatened coral
species.
One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any alternatives
to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives and which
minimize any significant economic impacts. These impacts are discussed
below. Additionally, the RFA (5 U.S.C. 603(c)(1)-(4)) lists four
general categories of ``significant'' alternatives that would assist an
agency in the development of significant alternatives. These categories
of alternatives are: (1) Establishment of differing compliance or
reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2) clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting
requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of
performance rather than design standards; and (4) exemptions from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule, consistent
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the ESA, NMFS cannot establish
differing compliance requirements for small entities or exempt small
entities from compliance requirements. Thus, there are no alternatives
discussed that fall under the first and fourth categories described
above. NMFS does not know of any performance or design standards that
would satisfy the objectives of this rulemaking while, concurrently,
complying with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. As described below, NMFS
analyzed several different alternatives in this proposed rulemaking and
provides rationales for identifying the preferred alternatives to
achieve the desired objectives.
The alternatives considered and analyzed are described below. The
IRFA assumes that each vessel will have similar catch and gross
revenues to show the relative impact of the proposed action on vessels.
In this rulemaking, we considered 6 different categories of management
measures to address current issues facing LCS and SCS shark fisheries.
These categories are permit stacking (A1-A3), commercial retention
limits (B1-B4), Atlantic sub-regional quotas (C1-C7), Gulf of Mexico
sub-regional quotas (D1-D7), and upgrading restrictions (E1 and E2).
Permit Stacking
Under Alternative A1, the preferred alternative, NMFS would not
implement permit stacking for the shark directed limited access permit
holders. NMFS would continue to allow only one directed limited access
permit per vessel and thus one retention limit. The current retention
limit of 36 LCS per trip would result in potential trip revenues of
$1,166 (1,224 lb of meat, 61 lb of fins) per vessel, assuming an ex-
vessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins. It is likely that
this alternative could possibly have minor adverse socioeconomic
impacts in the long term, because if fishermen are unable to retain an
increased number of LCS per trip by stacking permits, the profitability
of each trip could decline over time, due to declining prices for shark
products and increasing prices for gas, bait, and other associated
costs. The No Action alternative could also have neutral indirect
impacts to those supporting the commercial shark fisheries, since the
retention limits, and thus current fishing efforts, would not change
under this alternative.
Under Alternative A2, NMFS would allow fishermen to concurrently
use a maximum of two shark directed permits on one vessel, which would
result in aggregated, and thus higher, trip limits. Under the current
LCS retention limit of 36 LCS, this would allow a vessel with two
stacked permits to have a LCS retention limit of 72 LCS per trip. This
new retention limit would result in potential trip revenues of $2,332
(2,448 lb of meat, 124 lb of fins) per vessel, assuming an ex-vessel
price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins, which is an increase of
$1,166 per trip compared to the status quo alternative. For fishermen
that currently have two directed limited access permits, this
alternative would have short-term minor beneficial socioeconomic
impacts because these fishermen would be able to stack their permits
and avail themselves of the retention limit of 72 LCS per trip. The
higher retention limit is likely to make each trip more profitable for
fishermen, as well as more efficient, if they decide to take fewer
trips and in turn save money on gas, bait, and other associated costs.
This alternative could also have indirect, minor beneficial
socioeconomic impacts to entities supporting the commercial shark
fisheries, such as fishing tackle manufacturers and suppliers, bait
suppliers, fuel providers, and shark dealers, because the increased
efficiency and profitability in the fisheries could also lead to
increases in potential employment, personal income, and sales for the
entities supporting the fisheries. However, the current number of
directed permits in the Atlantic region is 136, and 130 of those
permits have different owners. In the Gulf of Mexico, of the 83
directed shark permits, 73 have different owners. Therefore, it is
unlikely that many of the current directed shark permit holders would
be able to benefit from this alternative in the short-term. In
addition, the cost of one directed shark permit can run anywhere
between $2,000 and $5,000, which could be difficult for many shark
fishermen to afford. For fishermen that do not currently have more than
one directed shark permit, this alternative could have long-term minor
beneficial impacts if these fishermen are able to acquire an additional
permit and offset the cost of the additional permit by taking advantage
of the potential economic benefits of the higher retention limits.
Nevertheless, this alternative is unlikely to have beneficial
socioeconomic impacts for the shark fishery as a whole because only
shark fishermen that could afford to buy multiple shark permits would
benefit from the higher retention limit and higher revenues whereas
those shark fishermen that cannot afford to buy a second directed shark
permit would be at a disadvantage, unable to economically benefit from
the higher retention limits. Given the current make-up of the shark
fishery, which primarily consists of small business fishermen with only
one permit, and the cost of the additional permit, this could
potentially lead to inequity and unfairness among the directed shark
permit holders if those fishermen that currently have multiple directed
permits or that could afford to buy an additional directed permit gain
an economic advantage.
Under Alternative A3, NMFS would allow fishermen to concurrently
use a maximum of three shark directed permits on one vessel, which
would result in aggregated, and thus higher, trip limits. Under the
current LCS retention limit of 36 LCS, this would mean that a vessel
with three stacked permits would have a LCS retention limit of 108 LCS
per trip. This alternative would allow shark directed permit holders to
retain three times as many LCS per trip then the current retention
limit. This new retention limit would result in potential trip revenues
of $3,498 (3,672 lb of meat, 184 lb of
[[Page 2661]]
fins) per vessel, assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for meat and
$6.05 for fins, which is an increase of $2,332 per trip compared to the
status quo alternative. The higher retention limit is likely to make
each trip more profitable for fishermen, as well as more efficient, if
they decide to take fewer trips and in turn save money on gas, bait,
and other associated costs. Similar to Alternative A2, this alternative
would have short-term minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts for
fishermen that currently have three shark directed limited access
permits, because these fishermen would be able to stack their permits
and avail themselves of the retention limit of 108 LCS per trip. As
mentioned above, the current number of shark directed permit holders is
219, with 93 percent having different owners. Therefore, it is unlikely
that many of the current directed shark permit holders currently hold
three directed shark permits and would be able to benefit from this
alternative in the short-term. For fishermen who do not currently have
more than one directed shark permit, this alternative could have larger
long-term beneficial socioeconomic impacts than Alternative 2, if these
fishermen are able to acquire two additional permits and offset the
cost of the additional permits by taking advantage of the potential
economic benefits of retaining up to 108 LCS per trip. However, for the
same reasons discussed for Alternative A2, this alternative is unlikely
to have socioeconomic benefits for those shark fishermen that cannot
afford to buy two additional directed permits, and thus would be unable
to economically benefit from a higher retention limit. Thus, given the
current make-up of the shark fishery, Alternative A3 could potentially
lead to more inequity and unfairness among the directed shark permit
holders than Alternative A2, especially if those fishermen that
currently have multiple directed permits or that could afford to buy
additional directed permits gain an economic advantage under this
alternative.
Commercial Retention Limits
Alternative B1 would not change the current commercial LCS
retention limit for shark directed permit holders. The retention limit
would remain at 36 LCS other than sandbar sharks per trip for directed
permit holders. This retention limit would result in potential trip
revenues of $1,166 (1,224 lb of meat, 61 lb of fins) per vessel
assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins. It is
likely that this alternative would have short-term neutral
socioeconomic impacts, since the retention limits would not change
under this alternative. However, not adjusting the retention limit
would have long-term minor adverse socioeconomic impacts, due to the
expected continuing decline in prices for shark products and increase
in gas, bait, and other associated costs, which would lead to declining
profitability of individual trips. In recent years, there have been
changes in federal and state regulations, including the implementation
of Amendment 5a and state bans on the possession, sale, and trade of
shark fins, which have impacted shark fishermen. In addition to federal
and state regulations, there have also been many international efforts
to prohibit shark finning at sea, as well as campaigns targeted at the
shark fin soup markets. All of these efforts have impacted the market
and demand for shark fins. In addition, NMFS has seen a steady decline
in ex-vessel prices for shark fins in all regions since 2010 (NMFS
2013).
Alternative B2, the preferred alternative, would increase the LCS
retention limit to a maximum of 55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per
trip for shark directed permit holders and reduce the sandbar shark
research fishery quota to 75.7 mt dw (166,826 lb dw). This alternative
would allow shark directed permit holders to retain 19 more LCS per
trip than the current retention limit. This new retention limit would
result in potential trip revenues of $1,781 (1,870 lb of meat, 94 lb of
fins), assuming an ex-vessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for
fins. This alternative would have short- and long-term direct minor
beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since shark directed permit holders
could land more sharks per trip when compared to the current retention
limit of 36 LCS per trip. The higher retention limit is likely to make
each trip more profitable for fishermen, as well as more efficient, if
they decide to take fewer trips, and in turn save money on fuel, bait,
and other associated costs. Regarding the shark research fishery, this
alternative could cause an average annual loss of $85,944, since the
sandbar research fishery quota would be reduced by 90,230 lb dw. This
potential lost income for the research fishery could be positive for
commercial fishermen, since the increased retention limit could make
trips more profitable. NMFS estimates that this reduction in the
sandbar research fishery quota would have neutral socioeconomic
impacts, based on current limited resources available to fund observed
trips in the fishery and the current harvest level of the sandbar
research fishery quota. In 2013, the vessels participating in the
Atlantic shark research fishery only landed 37.0 mt dw (81,628 lb dw),
or 32 percent, of the available sandbar shark quota. Under the new
sandbar shark quota with the Atlantic shark research fishery, the 2013
landings would result in 49 percent of the new sandbar shark quota
being landed. If available resources increase in the future for more
observed trips in the fishery, then this alternative could have minor
adverse socioeconomic impacts if the full quota is caught and the
fishery has to close earlier in the year.
Alternative B3 would increase the LCS retention limit to a maximum
of 72 LCS other than sandbar sharks per trip for shark directed permit
holders and reduce the sandbar shark research fishery quota to 63.0 mt
dw (138,937 lb dw). This alternative would double the current retention
limit. This new retention limit would result in potential trip revenues
of $2,332 (2,448 lb of meat, 124 lb of fins), assuming an ex-vessel
price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins. This alternative would have
short- and long-term minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts, since
shark directed permit holders could land twice as many LCS per trip.
Shark directed trips would become more profitable, but more permit
holders could become active in order to avail themselves of this higher
trip limit. Before Amendment 2, there were 143 active directed shark
permit holders, and the number of active directed shark permit holders
has declined to 90, due to the current retention limit and declines in
shark product prices. The increased retention limit could cause some
fishermen to become active again, potentially causing a derby fishery
and bringing the price of shark products even lower. Thus, NMFS needs
to balance providing the flexibility of increasing the efficiency of
trips and the associated socioeconomic benefits with the negative
socioeconomic impacts of derby fishing and lower profits. This
alternative could have neutral impacts for fishermen participating in
the Atlantic shark research fishery, since the 2013 landings (37.0 mt
dw; 81,628 lb dw) would result in 59 percent of the new sandbar shark
quota being landed. Under Alternative B3, the new sandbar shark quota
could result in average annual loss revenue of $112,508 for those
fishermen participating in the shark research fishery, but the income
could be recouped by the increased retention limit outside the shark
research fishery. If available resources increase in the future for
more observed trips in the fishery, then this alternative
[[Page 2662]]
still would have neutral socioeconomic impacts, since the observed
trips would be distributed throughout the year to ensure the research
fishery remains open and obtains biological and catch data all year
round.
Alternative B4 would increase the LCS retention limit to a maximum
of 108 LCS other than sandbar sharks per trip for shark directed permit
holders and reduce the sandbar shark research fishery quota to 36.2 mt
dw (79,878 lb dw). This alternative would allow shark directed permit
holders to retain three times as many LCS per trip as the current
retention limit. This new retention limit would result in potential
trip revenues of $3,498 (3,672 lb of meat, 184 lb of fins), assuming an
ex-vessel price of $0.65 for meat and $6.05 for fins. This alternative
could have short- and long-term moderate beneficial socioeconomic
impacts, since shark directed permit holders could land three times the
current LCS retention limit. This increased retention limit could
result in 3,672 lb dw of LCS per trip, which could bring the fishery
almost back to historical levels of 4,000 lb dw LCS per trip. While a
retention limit of 108 LCS per trip would make each trip more
profitable and potentially require fishermen to take fewer trips per
year, this large increase in the retention limit could cause a lot more
permit holders to become active. Thus, the profit of individual vessels
could decrease, because LCS quotas could be caught at a faster rate,
and the fishing season could be shortened. Additionally, in order to
increase the retention limit to 108 LCS per trip, the sandbar shark
research quota would need to be reduced to an amount below what is
currently being landed in the shark research fishery, which would have
adverse impacts on fishermen in the shark research fishery, who would
lose quota, and thus revenue.
Atlantic Regional and Sub-Regional Quotas
Alternative C1, the No Action alternative, would not change the
current management of the Atlantic shark fisheries. This alternative
would likely result in short-term, direct neutral socioeconomic impacts
as fisheries would continue to operate under current conditions, with
shark fishermen continuing to fish at current rates. Based on the 2013
ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for the entire fleet from
aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark meat in the Atlantic region would
be $339,998, while the shark fins would be $76,299. Thus, total average
annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark landings
in the Atlantic region would be $416,297 ($339,998 + $76,299), which is
9 percent of the entire revenue for the shark fishery. For the non-
blacknose SCS and blacknose shark landings, the annual gross revenues
for the entire fleet from the meat would be $304,747, while the shark
fins would be $75,537. The total average annual gross revenues for non-
blacknose SCS and blacknose shark landings in the Atlantic region would
be $380,284 ($304,747 + $75,537), which is 8 percent of the entire
revenue for the shark fishery. However, this alternative would likely
result in long-term minor adverse socioeconomic impacts. Negative
impacts would be partly due to the continued negative effects of
federal and state regulations related to shark finning and sale of
shark fins, which have resulted in declining ex-vessel prices of fins
since 2010, as well as continued changes in shark fishery management
measures. Additionally, under the current regulations, fishermen
operating in the south of the Atlantic region drastically impact the
availability of quota remaining for fishermen operating in the north of
the Atlantic region. If fishermen in the south fish early in the year,
they have the ability to land a large proportion of the quota before
fishermen in the north have the opportunity to fish, due to time/area
closures and seasonal migrations of LCS and SCS. Indirect short-term
socioeconomic impacts resulting from any of the actions in Alternative
C1 would likely be neutral because the measures would maintain the
status quo with respect to shark landings and fishing effort. However,
this alternative would likely result in indirect long-term minor
adverse socioeconomic impacts. Negative socioeconomic impacts and
decreased revenues associated with financial difficulties experienced
by fishermen within Atlantic shark fisheries would carry over to the
dealers and supporting businesses they regularly interact with.
Alternative C2 would apportion the Atlantic regional quotas for LCS
and SCS along 33[deg]00' N. Lat. (approximately at Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina) into northern and southern sub-regional quotas and
potentially adjust the non-blacknose SCS quota based on the results of
the 2013 assessments for Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks.
Establishing sub-regional quotas could allow for flexibility in
seasonal openings within the Atlantic region. Different seasonal
openings within sub-regions would allow fishermen to maximize their
fishing effort during periods when sharks migrate into local waters or
when regional time/area closures are not in effect. This would benefit
the economic interests of North Carolina and Florida fishermen, the
primary constituents impacted by the timing of seasonal openings for
LCS and SCS in the Atlantic, by placing them in separate sub-regions
with separate sub-regional quotas. Under this alternative, the northern
Atlantic sub-region would receive 24.5 percent of the total aggregated
LCS quota (41.4 mt dw; 91,275 lb dw) and 34.1 percent of the total
hammerhead shark quota (9.2 mt dw; 20,370 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-
vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and
hammerhead shark meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be
$86,970, while the shark fins would be $19,705. Thus, total average
annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark landings
in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $106,675 ($86,970 +
$19,705). There are approximately 61 directed shark permit holders in
the northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual
permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would be $1,749 per vessel. When
compared to the other alternatives, the northern Atlantic sub-region
would have minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts under Alternative C2,
because this alternative would result in the highest total average
annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks. In the
southern Atlantic sub-region, fishermen would receive 75.5 percent of
the total aggregated LCS quota (127.5 mt dw; 281,277 lb dw) and 65.9
percent of the total hammerhead shark quota (17.9 mt dw; 39,366 lb dw).
Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for
aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark meat in the southern Atlantic sub-
region would be $253,029, while the shark fins would be $56,593. The
total average annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead
shark landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $309,622
($253,029 + $56,593). When compared to the other alternatives, the
southern Atlantic sub-region would have minor adverse socioeconomic
impacts under Alternative C2, because this alternative would result in
lower total average annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and
hammerhead sharks.
Under Alternative C2, NMFS would determine the blacknose shark
quota for each sub-region using the percentage of landings associated
with blacknose sharks within each sub-region and the new non-blacknose
SCS quotas in conjunction with Alternatives C5, C6,
[[Page 2663]]
and C7. The northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 32.3 percent of
the total non-blacknose SCS quota, while the southern Atlantic sub-
region would receive 67.7 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota
in this alternative. For the blacknose sharks, the northern Atlantic
sub-region would receive 4.5 percent of the total blacknose shark quota
(0.8 mt dw; 1,739 lb dw), while the southern Atlantic sub-region would
receive 95.5 percent of the total blacknose shark quota (16.7 mt dw;
36,899 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross
revenues for blacknose shark meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region
would be $1,443, while the shark fins would be $307. Thus, total
average annual gross revenues for blacknose shark landings in the
northern Atlantic sub-region would be $1,750 ($1,443 + $307). Based on
the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for blacknose
shark meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $30,626, while
the shark fins would be $6,513. The total average annual gross revenues
for blacknose shark landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would
be $37,139 ($30,626 + $6,513).
This alternative would have minor beneficial socioeconomic impacts
for the northern Atlantic sub-region fishermen when compared to
Alternative C3, because fishermen in the northern Atlantic sub-region
would receive a higher quota under Alternative C2. Alternative C2 would
have minor adverse economic impacts for the southern Atlantic sub-
region fishermen when compared to other alternatives, because fishermen
in the southern Atlantic sub-region would receive a lower quota under
Alternative C2. The slight increase in some of the sub-regional quotas
within the northern Atlantic sub-region would result in direct short-
term minor beneficial impacts, and ultimately direct long-term moderate
beneficial impacts. Beneficial economic impacts are based on increased
average annual gross revenues associated with increased aggregated LCS,
hammerhead, and non-blacknose SCS sub-regional quotas in the northern
Atlantic region seen in this alternative. While Alternative C2 would
allow fishermen flexibility to maximize landings of LCS and SCS within
their associated sub-regions, it does not take into consideration the
SEDAR 34 stock assessment results or the quota linkages between non-
blacknose SCS and blacknose sharks, and therefore, NMFS does not prefer
this alternative at this time.
Alternative C3 would apportion the Atlantic regional quotas for LCS
and SCS along 34[deg]00' N. Lat. (approximately at Wilmington, North
Carolina) into northern and southern sub-regional quotas and
potentially adjust the non-blacknose SCS quota based on the results of
the 2013 assessments for Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks. This
alternative would likely result in direct short-term minor beneficial
impacts, and ultimately direct long-term moderate beneficial impacts.
However, drawing the regional boundary between the northern and
southern Atlantic sub-regions along 34[deg]00' N. Lat. would result in
more equitable sub-regional quotas, in comparison to the boundary
considered in Alternative C2. Under this alternative, the northern
Atlantic sub-region would receive 19.7 percent of the total aggregated
LCS quota (33.3 mt dw; 73,393 lb dw) and 34.1 percent of the total
hammerhead shark quota (9.2 mt dw; 20,370 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-
vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and
hammerhead shark meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be
$72,485, while the shark fins would be $16,549. Thus, total average
annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark landings
in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $89,034 ($72,485 +
$16,549). There are approximately 61 directed shark permit holders in
the northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual
permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would be $1,460 per vessel. When
compared to Alternative C2, the northern Atlantic sub-region would have
minor adverse economic impacts under this alternative. In the southern
Atlantic sub-region, fishermen would receive 80.3 percent of the total
aggregated LCS quota (135.6 mt dw; 299,159 lb dw) and 65.9 percent of
the total hammerhead shark quota (17.9 mt dw; 39,366 lb dw). Based on
the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS
and hammerhead shark meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be
$267,513, while the shark fins would be $59,750. The total average
annual gross revenues for aggregated LCS and hammerhead shark landings
in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $327,263 ($267,513 +
$59,750). There are approximately 64 directed shark permit holders in
the southern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual
permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would be $5,113 per vessel. This
alternative would have minor beneficial economic impacts for the
southern Atlantic sub-region fishermen when compared to Alternative C2.
As in Alternative C2, NMFS would determine the blacknose shark
quota for each sub-region using the percentage of landings associated
with blacknose sharks within each sub-region in Alternative C3 and the
new non-blacknose SCS quotas in conjunction in Alternatives C5, C6, and
C7. Under Alternative C3, the northern Atlantic sub-region would
receive 30.3 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota, while the
southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 69.7 percent of the total
non-blacknose SCS quota. For the blacknose sharks, the northern
Atlantic sub-region would receive 4.5 percent of the total blacknose
shark quota (0.8 mt dw; 1,732 lb dw), while the southern Atlantic sub-
region would receive 95.5 percent of the total blacknose shark quota
(16.7 mt dw; 36,899 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the
annual gross revenues for blacknose shark meat in the northern Atlantic
sub-region would be $1,443, while the shark fins would be $307. Thus,
total average annual gross revenues for blacknose shark landings in the
northern Atlantic sub-region would be $1,750 ($1,443 + $307). Based on
the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for blacknose
shark meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be $30,626, while
the shark fins would be $6,513. The total average annual gross revenues
for blacknose shark landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would
be $37,139 ($30,626 + $6,513). This alternative would have neutral
socioeconomic impacts for the northern Atlantic sub-region fishermen
when compared to Alternative C2, and would have beneficial
socioeconomic impacts for the southern Atlantic sub-region fishermen
when compared to Alternative C2.
Alternative C4, one of the preferred alternatives, would apportion
the Atlantic regional quotas for certain LCS and SCS management groups
along 34[deg]00' N. Latitude (approximately at Wilmington, North
Carolina) into northern and southern sub-regional quotas, maintain SCS
quota linkages in the southern sub-region of the Atlantic region,
remove the SCS quota linkages in the northern sub-region of the
Atlantic region, and prohibit the harvest and landings of blacknose
sharks in the northern Atlantic sub-region. The socioeconomic impacts
of apportioning the Atlantic regional quotas for LCS and SCS along
34[deg]00' N. Lat. into northern and southern sub-regional quotas as
preferred in this alternative would have the same impacts as described
in
[[Page 2664]]
alternative C3 above. Removing quota linkages within the northern
Atlantic sub-region would have beneficial impacts, as active fishermen
in this region would be able to continue fishing for non-blacknose SCS
without the fishing activities in the southern Atlantic sub-region,
where the majority of blacknose sharks are landed, impacting the timing
of the non-blacknose SCS fishery closure. Economic advantages
associated with removing quota linkages, allowing the northern Atlantic
sub-region to land a larger number of non-blacknose SCS, would outweigh
the income lost from prohibiting landings of blacknose sharks ($1,750),
particularly given the minimal landings of blacknose sharks attributed
to the northern sub-region. In the southern Atlantic region, no
socioeconomic impacts are expected by maintaining the quota linkages
already in place for SCS. Thus, by removing quota linkages in the
northern Atlantic region, in combination with apportioning the Atlantic
regional quota at 34[deg]00' N. Lat. to allow fishermen to maximize
their fishing effort, and thereby maximize revenue, during periods when
sharks migrate into local waters or when regional time/area closures
are not in place, Alternative C4 would result in overall direct and
indirect, short- and long-term moderate beneficial socioeconomic
impacts.
Alternative C5 would establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of 353.2 mt
dw and reduce the non-blacknose SCS commercial quota to 128 mt dw
(282,238 lb dw). When combined with the other alternatives to establish
sub-regional non-blacknose SCS quotas, the economic impacts of
Alternative C5 would vary based on the alternative. Under Alternative
C2, the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 32.2 percent of the
total non-blacknose SCS quota (41.2 mt dw; 90,881 lb dw) and the
southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 67.8 percent of the total
non-blacknose SCS quota (86.8 mt dw; 191,357 lb dw). Based on the 2013
ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat
in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $63,617, while the shark
fins would be $16,040. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for
non-blacknose SCS landings in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be
$79,657 ($63,617 + $16,040). There are approximately 61 directed shark
permit holders in the northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this
number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues
for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $1,306 per
vessel. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues
for non-blacknose SCS meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be
$133,950, while the shark fins would be $33,775. The total average
annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the southern
Atlantic sub-region would be $167,724 ($133,950 + $33,775). There are
approximately 56 directed shark permit holders in the southern Atlantic
sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total
average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this
sub-region would be $2,995 per vessel. Sub-regional quotas under
Alternative C2 are about a two percent increase in landings allocated
to the northern region for non-blacknose SCS when compared to
Alternative C3. This percentage would lead to a slight increase in some
of the sub-regional quotas within the northern Atlantic sub-region, as
compared to Alternative C3, and would result in short-term minor
beneficial impacts, and ultimately long-term moderate beneficial
impacts in the northern Atlantic sub-region.
Using the quotas considered under Alternative C5 and the sub-
regional split under Alternatives C3 and C4 (preferred alternative),
the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 30.3 percent of the
total non-blacknose SCS quota (38.8 mt dw; 85,518 lb dw), while the
southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 69.7 percent of the total
non-blacknose SCS quota (89.2 mt dw; 196,720 lb dw). Based on the 2013
ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat
in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $59,863, while the shark
fins would be $15,094. The total average annual gross revenues for non-
blacknose SCS landings in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be
$74,957 ($59,863 + $15,094). There are approximately 53 directed shark
permit holders in the northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this
number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues
for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $1,414 per
vessel. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues
for non-blacknose SCS meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be
$137,704, while the shark fins would be $34,721. The total average
annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the southern
Atlantic sub-region would be $172,425 ($137,704 + $34,721). There are
approximately 64 directed shark permit holders in the southern Atlantic
sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total
average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this
sub-region would be $2,694 per vessel. Overall, the non-blacknose SCS
commercial quota considered under this alternative is almost thirty
percent less than the current base quota and less than half of the
current adjusted quota for this management group. Therefore, NMFS
believes this alternative would have short- and long-term minor adverse
socioeconomic impacts due to the quota being capped at a lower level
than what is currently being landed in the non-blacknose SCS fisheries,
leading to a loss in annual revenue for these shark fishermen. In
addition, the adverse impacts would be compounded by the unknown stock
status of bonnethead, which would prevent NMFS from carrying forward
underharvested quota. Thus, the commercial quota of 128 mt dw would not
be adjusted and the fishermen would be limited to this amount each
year, which could lead to shorter seasons and reduced flexibility,
potentially affecting fishermen's decisions to participate.
Under Alternative C6, a preferred alternative, NMFS would establish
a non-blacknose SCS TAC and maintain the current base annual quota of
176.1 mt dw (388,222 lb dw). When combined with the other alternatives
to establish sub-regional non-blacknose SCS quotas, the economic
impacts of Alternative C6 would vary based on the sub-regional quotas.
Under Alternatives C2, the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive
32.2 percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (56.7 mt dw; 125,007
lb dw) and the southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 67.8 percent
of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (119.4 mt dw; 263,215 lb dw).
Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-
blacknose SCS meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be
$87,505, while the shark fins would be $22,064. Thus, total average
annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the northern
Atlantic sub-region would be $109,569 ($87,505 + $22,064). There are
approximately 61 directed shark permit holders in the northern Atlantic
sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total
average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this
sub-region would be $1,796 per vessel. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel
prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the
southern Atlantic sub-region would be $184,251, while the shark fins
would be $46,457. The total average annual gross revenues for non-
blacknose SCS landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be
$230,708 ($184,251 +
[[Page 2665]]
$46,457). There are approximately 56 directed shark permit holders in
the southern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this number of individual
permits, the total average annual gross revenues for the directed
permit holders in this sub-region would be $4,119 per vessel. Sub-
regional quotas under Alternative C2 would lead to some slightly higher
sub-regional quotas within the northern Atlantic sub-region, as
compared to Alternative C3, and would result in short-term minor
beneficial impacts, and ultimately long-term moderate beneficial
impacts in the northern Atlantic sub-region.
Using the quotas considered under Alternative C6 and the sub-
regional split considered under Alternatives C3 and C4 (preferred
alternative), the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 30.3
percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (53.4 mt dw; 117,631 lb
dw), while the southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 69.7 percent
of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (123.7 mt dw; 270,591 lb dw).
Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-
blacknose SCS meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be
$82,342, while the shark fins would be $20,762. The total average
annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the northern
Atlantic sub-region would be $103,104 ($82,342 + $20,762). There are
approximately 53 directed shark permit holders in the northern Atlantic
sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total
average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this
sub-region would be $1,945 per vessel. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel
prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the
southern Atlantic sub-region would be $189,414, while the shark fins
would be $47,759. The total average annual gross revenues for non-
blacknose SCS landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be
$237,173 ($189,414 + $47,759). There are approximately 64 directed
shark permit holders in the southern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this
number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues
for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $3,706 per
vessel. Overall, Alternative C6 would lead to a lower quota in the
northern Atlantic sub-region, as compared to current landings under the
higher base quota. However, NMFS prefers this alternative at this time
because it accounts for the status of Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead
sharks and takes into account all sources of mortality for both species
and would continue to allow fishermen to land non-blacknose SCS at
current levels.
Under Alternative C7, NMFS would establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC
of 489.3 mt dw and increase the quota to the current adjusted base
annual quota of 264.1 mt dw (582,333 lb dw). The economic impacts of
Alternative C7 would vary when combined with the other alternatives to
establish sub-regional non-blacknose SCS quotas. Under Alternative C2,
the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 32.2 percent of the
total non-blacknose SCS quota (85.0 mt dw; 187,511 lb dw) and the
southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 67.8 percent of the total
non-blacknose SCS quota (179.1 mt dw; 394,822 lb dw). Based on the 2013
ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat
in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be $131,258, while the shark
fins would be $33,096. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for
non-blacknose SCS landings in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be
$164,353 ($131,258 + $33,096). There are approximately 61 directed
shark permit holders in the northern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this
number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues
for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $2,694 per
vessel. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues
for non-blacknose SCS meat in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be
$276,375, while the shark fins would be $69,686. The total average
annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the southern
Atlantic sub-region would be $346,061 ($276,375 + $69,686). There are
approximately 56 directed shark permit holders in the southern Atlantic
sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total
average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this
sub-region would be $6,179 per vessel. Sub-regional quotas under
Alternatives C2 would lead to some slightly higher sub-regional quotas
within the northern Atlantic sub-region, as compared to Alternative C3
and C4, and would result in short-term minor beneficial impacts, and
ultimately long-term moderate beneficial impacts in the northern
Atlantic sub-region, especially if there is no quota linkage to
blacknose sharks in the northern Atlantic sub-region.
Using the quotas considered under Alternative C7 and the sub-
regional split considered under Alternatives C3 and C4 (preferred
alternative), the northern Atlantic sub-region would receive 30.3
percent of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (80.0 mt dw; 176,447 lb
dw), while the southern Atlantic sub-region would receive 69.7 percent
of the total non-blacknose SCS quota (184.1 mt dw; 405,886 lb dw).
Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-
blacknose SCS meat in the northern Atlantic sub-region would be
$123,513, while the shark fins would be $31,143. The total average
annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings in the northern
Atlantic sub-region would be $154,656 ($123,513 + $31,143). There are
approximately 53 directed shark permit holders in the northern Atlantic
sub-region. Based on this number of individual permits, the total
average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this
sub-region would be $2,918 per vessel. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel
prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in the
southern Atlantic sub-region would be $284,120, while the shark fins
would be $71,639. The total average annual gross revenues for non-
blacknose SCS landings in the southern Atlantic sub-region would be
$355,759 ($284,120 + $71,639). There are approximately 64 directed
shark permit holders in the southern Atlantic sub-region. Based on this
number of individual permits, the total average annual gross revenues
for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $5,559 per
vessel. Overall, Alternative C7 would lead to the same quota in the
northern Atlantic sub-region, as compared to current landings under the
higher base quota. However, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at
this time, because it would cap the non-blacknose SCS commercial at a
higher level than Alternative C6 and does not account for the
uncertainties in the SEDAR 34 bonnethead stock assessment.
Gulf of Mexico Regional and Sub-Regional Quotas
Alternative D1, the No Action alternative, would maintain the
current regional quotas and quota linkages in the Gulf of Mexico region
and continue to allow harvest of hammerhead sharks throughout the
entire Gulf of Mexico region. This alternative would likely result in
short-term neutral direct socioeconomic impacts, because shark
fishermen would continue to operate under current conditions, with
shark fishermen continuing to fish at similar rates. Based on the 2013
ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for the entire fleet from
blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark meat in the Gulf of
Mexico region would be $440,365, while the shark fins would be
$554,750. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for blacktip,
aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in
[[Page 2666]]
the Gulf of Mexico region would be $995,115 ($440,365 + $554,750),
which would be 21 percent of the entire shark fishery. There are
approximately 90 directed shark permit holders in the entire Gulf of
Mexico, which would result in average annual gross revenues for all LCS
species of $11,057 per vessel. For the non-blacknose SCS and blacknose
shark landings, the annual gross revenues for the entire fleet from the
meat would be $35,757, while the shark fins would be $58,495. The total
average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS and blacknose shark
landings in the Atlantic region were $94,252 ($35,757 + $58,495), which
is 2 percent of the entire revenue for the shark fishery. For the
approximately 90 directed shark permit holders in the entire Gulf of
Mexico, this which would result in average annual gross revenues for
all SCS species of $1,047 per vessel. However, this alternative would
likely result in long-term minor adverse socioeconomic impacts.
Negative impacts would be partly due to the continued negative effects
of federal and state regulations related to shark finning and sale of
shark fins, which have resulted in declining ex-vessel prices of fins
since 2010, as well as continued changes in shark fishery management
measures. In addition, under the No Action alternative the non-
blacknose SCS quota would not be modified. This could potentially lead
to negative socioeconomic impacts, since the non-blacknose SCS quotas
could be increased based on the most recent stock assessment, as
described in alternatives D5-D7 below. Additionally, under the current
regulations, differences in regional season opening dates would impact
the availability of quota remaining in the Gulf of Mexico. Florida
fishermen begin fishing the LCS quotas in the beginning of the year,
because sharks are in local waters. This puts Louisiana fishermen at a
slight economic disadvantage, as they prefer to delay fishing in order
to maximize fishing efforts during the religious holiday Lent when
prices for shark meat are higher. Indirect short-term socioeconomic
impacts resulting from any of the actions in Alternative D1 would
likely be neutral. The measures would maintain the status quo with
respect to shark landings and fishing effort. However, this alternative
would likely result in indirect long-term minor adverse socioeconomic
impacts. Negative socioeconomic impacts and decreased revenues
associated with financial hardships experienced by fishermen within the
Gulf of Mexico shark fisheries would carry over to the dealers and
supporting businesses they regularly interact with. In addition, this
alternative would not achieve the goals of this rulemaking of
increasing management flexibility to adapt to the changing needs of the
Atlantic shark fisheries.
Alternative D2 would apportion the Gulf of Mexico regional quotas
for blacktip, aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks along 89[deg]00' W
Longitude into western and eastern sub-regional quotas. Establishing
sub-regional quotas would provide flexibility in seasonal openings
within the Gulf of Mexico region. Different seasonal openings within
sub-regions would allow fishermen to maximize their fishing effort
during periods when sharks migrate into local waters or during periods
when sales of shark meat are increased (e.g., in Louisiana, during
Lent). Drawing the regional boundary between the eastern and western
sub-regions along 89[deg]00' W Long. (between fishing catch areas 11
and 12), would better geographically separate the fishing activities of
the major fishing constituents in the Gulf of Mexico region (i.e.,
Louisiana and Florida), in contrast to the boundary in Alternative D3,
as the general range of Louisiana fishermen does not extend beyond this
boundary. Under this alternative, the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region
would receive 94.1 mt dw in blacktip shark, 87.0 mt dw in aggregated
LCS, and 25.2 mt dw in hammerhead shark quotas. Based on the 2013 ex-
vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated LCS,
and hammerhead shark meat in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region
would be $203,868, while the shark fins would be $80,259. Thus, total
average annual gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and
hammerhead shark landings in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region
would be $284,127 ($203,868 + $80,259). There are approximately 66
directed shark permit holders in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region.
Based on this number of individual directed permits, the total average
annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders in this sub-
region would be $4,305 per vessel. When compared to the other
alternatives, the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region would have minor
beneficial socioeconomic impacts under Alternative D2, because this
alternative would result in the highest total average annual gross
revenues for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead sharks.
In the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region under alternative D2,
fishermen would receive 65.7 percent of the total blacktip quota (180.2
mt dw; 397,239 lb dw), 42.5 percent of the total aggregated LCS quota
(64.2 mt dw; 141,877 lb dw), and 0.6 percent of the total hammerhead
shark quota (0.1 mt dw; 334 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices,
the annual gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead
shark meat in the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $236,497,
while the shark fins would be $95,213. Thus, total average annual gross
revenues for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in
the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $331,710 ($236,497 +
$95,213). There are approximately 24 directed shark permit holders in
the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region. Based on this number of
individual directed permits, the total average annual gross revenues
for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $13,821 per
vessel. The slight increase in the blacktip shark sub-regional quota in
the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region, in comparison to Alternative D3,
would result in direct short-term minor beneficial socioeconomic
impacts. Over time, increased revenues gained from the additional
blacktip shark sub-regional quota, as well as increased revenue
associated with fishermen maximizing their fishing effort during
periods when sharks migrate into local waters, could ultimately have
direct long-term moderate beneficial socioeconomic impacts. Under this
alternative the quota for hammerheads sharks in the western sub-region
would be 0.1 mt dw, which would be very difficult for NMFS to monitor
and control, possibly leading to the quota being overharvested. This
small hammerhead quota could lead to the aggregated LCS season being
closed very early, and thus fishermen losing revenues if they are not
able to land the aggregated LCS species. Therefore, because this
alternative does not take into consideration the quota linkages between
aggregated LCS and hammerhead sharks, NMFS does not prefer this
alternative.
Alternative D3 would apportion the Gulf of Mexico regional quotas
for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead sharks along 88[deg]00' W
Longitude into western and eastern sub-regional quotas. Under this
alternative, the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region would receive 31.2
percent of the total blacktip quota (85.6 mt dw; 188,643 lb dw), 53.2
percent of the total aggregated LCS quota (80.4 mt dw; 177,596 lb dw),
and 99.4 percent of the total hammerhead shark quota (25.2 mt dw;
55,388 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross
revenues
[[Page 2667]]
for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark meat in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $188,961, while the shark fins would
be $74,417. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for blacktip,
aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark landings in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico sub-region would be $263,378 ($188,961 + $74,417). There are
approximately 66 directed shark permit holders in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico sub-region. Based on this number of individual directed permits,
the total average annual gross revenues for the directed permit holders
in this sub-region would be $3,991 per vessel. When compared to the
other alternatives, the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region would have
minor adverse socioeconomic impacts under Alternative D3, because this
alternative would result in lower total average annual gross revenues
for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead sharks.
In the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region under alternative D3,
fishermen would receive 68.8 percent of the total blacktip quota (188.7
mt dw; 415,983 lb dw), 46.8 percent of the total aggregated LCS quota
(70.8 mt dw; 156,232 lb dw), and 0.6 percent of the total hammerhead
shark quota (0.1 mt dw; 334 lb dw). Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices,
the annual gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead
shark meat in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $251,403,
while the shark fins would be $101,055. Thus, total average annual
gross revenues for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and hammerhead shark
landings in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region would be $352,458
($251,403 + $101,055). There are approximately 24 directed shark permit
holders in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region. Based on this number
of individual directed permits, the total average annual gross revenues
for the directed permit holders in this sub-region would be $14,686 per
vessel. This alternative would have minor beneficial economic impacts
for the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region fishermen when compared to
other alternatives, because fishermen in the sub-region would receive a
higher quota. This alternative would likely result in direct short-term
minor beneficial impacts, and ultimately direct long-term moderate
beneficial impacts. However, drawing the regional boundary between the
eastern and western Gulf of Mexico sub-regions along 88[deg]00' W Long.
(i.e., between fishing catch areas 10 and 11) may not reflect
geographic differences in the distribution of major fishing
constituents in the region (i.e., Louisiana and Florida) as well as the
boundary in Alternative D2, as fishermen from Louisiana would be
encouraged to fish in waters farther east than they historically
occupied, which could create future user group conflicts within the
region. Despite beneficial economic impacts associated with this
alternative, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time because
the split in Alternative D2 may reflect the distribution of fishing
constituents better.
Alternative D4, one of the preferred alternatives, would apportion
the Gulf of Mexico regional quotas for blacktip, aggregated LCS, and
hammerhead sharks along 89[deg]00' W Longitude into western and eastern
sub-regional quotas and would maintain LCS quota linkages in the
eastern sub-region of the Gulf of Mexico region, remove the LCS quota
linkages in the western sub-region of the Gulf of Mexico region, and
prohibit the harvest of hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of Mexico
sub-region. Removing quota linkages within the western Gulf of Mexico
sub-region would have beneficial socioeconomic impacts, as fishermen
active in this region would be able to continuing fishing for
aggregated LCS sharks without fishing activities in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico sub-region dictating the timing of the aggregated LCS fishery
closure. Economic advantages associated with removing quota linkages,
allowing the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region to land a larger number
of aggregated LCS, would outweigh the income lost from prohibiting
landings of hammerhead sharks, particularly considering that the
estimated hammerhead quota for the western Gulf of Mexico would be 0.1
mt dw. In the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region, no socioeconomic
impacts are expected by maintaining the quota linkages already in place
for LCS. Thus, Alternative D4 would likely result in both direct and
indirect short- and long-term neutral socioeconomic impacts across the
entire Gulf of Mexico region, as increased revenues associated with
increased flexibility with season opening dates as a result of
implementing sub-regional quotas would be countered by potential losses
from prohibiting landings of hammerhead sharks in the western Gulf of
Mexico. Because Alternative D4 would have neutral economic impacts, but
still maintain the objective of providing flexibility of implementation
of shark management measures through the region, NMFS prefers this
alternative at this time.
Under Alternative D5, NMFS would establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC
of 931.9 mt dw and maintain the current base annual quota of 45.5 mt dw
(100,317 lb dw). This alternative would likely result in moderate
adverse socioeconomic impacts, due to the quota being capped at a lower
level than what the SEDAR 34 stock assessment indicated was
sustainable. Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross
revenues for non-blacknose SCS and blacknose shark meat in the Gulf of
Mexico region would be $32,101, while the shark fins would be $55,977.
Thus, total average annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS
landings would be $88,078 ($32,101 + $55,977). There are approximately
90 directed shark permit holders in the entire Gulf of Mexico, which
would result in average annual gross revenues for all SCS species of
$979 per vessel. When compared to Alternative D6, the preferred
alternative, this alternative would result in $44,040 ($132,118-
$88,078) less in total gross annual revenue, or $489 less per vessel.
In addition, the smaller quota under Alternative D5 could lead to
shorter seasons, when compared to 2013 landings. For these reasons,
NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this time.
Under Alternative D6, the preferred alternative, NMFS would
establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of 954.7 mt dw and increase the quota
to the current adjusted annual quota of 68.3 mt dw (150,476 lb dw).
Based on the 2013 ex-vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-
blacknose SCS meat in the Gulf of Mexico region would be $48,152, while
the shark fins would be $83,966. Thus, total average annual gross
revenues for non-blacknose SCS landings would be $132,118 ($48,152 +
$83,966). There are approximately 90 directed shark permit holders in
the entire Gulf of Mexico, which would result in average annual gross
revenues for all SCS species of $1,468 per vessel. NMFS prefers this
alternative at this time because it would increase the non-blacknose
SCS commercial quota above the current base quota and provide fishermen
with additional opportunities to profit from landing non-blacknose SCS
in the Gulf of Mexico region, compared to the quota considered under
Alternative D5, while also taking into account uncertainties in SEDAR
34, as well as the unknown status of bonnethead sharks.
Under Alternative D7, would establish a non-blacknose SCS TAC of
1,064.9 mt dw and increase the quota to 178.5 mt dw (393,566 lb dw).
Under this alternative, the commercial quota would be increased to
twice the current 2013 landings, which is almost four times the
[[Page 2668]]
current base annual quota for non-blacknose SCS. Based on the 2013 ex-
vessel prices, the annual gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS meat in
the Gulf of Mexico region would be $125,941, while the shark fins would
be $219,610. Thus, total average annual gross revenues for non-
blacknose SCS landings would be $345,551 ($125,941 + $219,610). There
are approximately 90 directed shark permit holders in the entire Gulf
of Mexico, which would result in average annual gross revenues for all
LCS species of $3,839 per vessel. The quota considered under this
alternative would result in an increase of $213,433 ($345,551 -
$132,118) in annual revenues or an increase of $2,371 per vessel, over
the quota considered in preferred Alternative D6. However, as mentioned
above, NMFS anticipates that it is not likely that fishermen would
economically benefit from the non-blacknose SCS quota considered under
Alternative D7, since the linkage with the blacknose quota would be
maintained, and therefore the non-blacknose SCS fishery would likely be
closed based on the blacknose quota before the full non-blacknose SCS
quota could be landed. For this reason, and because there are
uncertainties associated with the SEDAR 34 stock assessments, NMFS does
not prefer this alternative at this time.
Upgrading Restrictions
Under Alternative E1, the No Action alternative, NMFS would
maintain the current upgrading restrictions in place for shark limited
access permit holders. Thus, shark limited access permit holders would
continue to be limited to upgrading a vessel or transferring a permit
only if it does not result in an increase in horsepower of more than 20
percent or an increase of more than 10 percent overall, gross
registered tonnage, or net tonnage from the vessel baseline
specifications. The No Action alternative could result in direct and
indirect minor adverse socioeconomic impacts if fishermen continue to
be constrained by limits on horsepower and vessel size increases.
Fishermen would also be limited by these upgrading restrictions when
buying, selling, or transferring shark directed limited access permits.
Because the No Action alternative provides fishermen with less
operational flexibility, NMFS does not prefer this alternative at this
time.
Alternative E2, a preferred alternative, would remove current
upgrading restrictions for shark directed permit holders. Eliminating
these restrictions would have short- and long-term minor beneficial
socioeconomic impacts, since it would allow fishermen to buy, sell, or
transfer shark directed permits without worrying about the increase in
horsepower of more than 20 percent or an increase of more than 10
percent in length overall, gross registered tonnage, or net tonnage
from the vessel baseline specifications. In addition, the upgrade
restriction for shark permit holders was implemented to match the
upgrading restrictions for the Northeast multispecies permits. NMFS is
currently considering removing the upgrading restrictions for the
Northeast multispecies permits, and if those are removed, then removing
the upgrading restrictions for shark directed permit holders could aid
in maintaining consistency for fishermen who hold multiple permits.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635
Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Penalties, Permits and fees,
Commercial retention limits, Quotas.
Dated: January 12, 2015.
Samuel D. Rauch III,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 635 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 635.2, the ``Management group'' definition is added in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 635.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Management group in regard to sharks means a group of shark species
that are combined for quota management purposes. A management group may
be split by region and sub-region, as defined at Sec. 635.27(b)(1). A
fishery for a management group can be opened or closed as a whole or at
the regional or sub-regional levels. Sharks have the following
management groups: Atlantic aggregated LCS, Gulf of Mexico aggregated
LCS, research LCS, hammerhead, Atlantic non-blacknose SCS, Gulf of
Mexico non-blacknose SCS, and pelagic sharks other than blue or
porbeagle.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec. 635.4, revise paragraphs (l)(2)(i) and the introductory
text of paragraph (l)(2)(ii), and remove paragraph (l)(2)(x) to read as
follows:
Sec. 635.4 Permits and fees.
* * * * *
(l) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Subject to the restrictions on upgrading the harvesting
capacity of permitted vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section,
as applicable, and to the limitations on ownership of permitted vessels
in paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this section, an owner may transfer a shark
or swordfish LAP or an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit to
another vessel that he or she owns or to another person. Directed
handgear LAPs for swordfish may be transferred to another vessel or to
another person but only for use with handgear and subject to the
upgrading restrictions in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section and the
limitations on ownership of permitted vessels in paragraph (l)(2)(iii)
of this section. Shark directed and incidental LAPs and swordfish
incidental LAPs are not subject to the upgrading requirements specified
in paragraph (l)(2)(ii) of this section. Shark and swordfish incidental
LAPs are not subject to the ownership requirements specified in
paragraph (l)(2)(iii) of this section.
(ii) An owner may upgrade a vessel with a swordfish LAP or an
Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit, or transfer such permit to
another vessel or to another person, and be eligible to retain or renew
such permit only if the upgrade or transfer does not result in an
increase in horsepower of more than 20 percent or an increase of more
than 10 percent in length overall, gross registered tonnage, or net
tonnage from the vessel baseline specifications. A vessel owner that
concurrently held a directed or incidental swordfish LAP, a directed or
incidental shark LAP, and an Atlantic Tunas Longline category permit as
of August 6, 2007, is eligible to increase the vessel size or transfer
the permits to another vessel as long as any increase in the three
specifications of vessel size (length overall, gross registered
tonnage, and net tonnage) does not exceed 35 percent of the vessel
baseline specifications, as defined in paragraph (l)(2)(ii)(A) of this
section; horsepower for those eligible vessels is not limited for
purposes of vessel upgrades or permit transfers.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec. 635.24, paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) are revised and
paragraphs (a)(4)(v) and (vi) are added to read as follows:
Sec. 635.24 Commercial retention limits for sharks, swordfish, and
BAYS tunas.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
[[Page 2669]]
(2) Except as noted in paragraphs (a)(4)(iv) through (vi) of this
section, a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a
directed LAP for sharks and does not have a valid shark research
permit, or a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued
a directed LAP for sharks and that has been issued a shark research
permit but does not have a NMFS-approved observer on board, may retain,
possess, or land no more than 55 LCS other than sandbar sharks per
vessel per trip if the respective LCS management group(s) is open per
Sec. Sec. 635.27 and 635.28. Such persons may not retain, possess, or
land sandbar sharks.
(3) Except as noted in paragraphs (a)(4)(iv) through (vi) of this
section, a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued an
incidental LAP for sharks and does not have a valid shark research
permit, or a person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued
an incidental LAP for sharks and that has been issued a valid shark
research permit but does not have a NMFS-approved observer on board,
may retain, possess, or land no more than 3 LCS other than sandbar
sharks per vessel per trip if the respective LCS management group(s) is
open per Sec. Sec. 635.27 and 635.28. Such persons may not retain,
possess, or land sandbar sharks.
(4) * * *
(v) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a
shark LAP and is operating in the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, as
defined at Sec. 635.27(b)(1)(ii), may not retain, possess, land, or
sell any hammerhead sharks.
(vi) A person who owns or operates a vessel that has been issued a
shark LAP and is operating in the northern Atlantic sub-region, as
defined at Sec. 635.27(b)(1)(i), may not retain, possess, land, or
sell any blacknose sharks.
* * * * *
0
5. In Sec. 635.27:
0
a. Paragraph (b)(1) as proposed to be amended at 79 FR 46217, August 7,
2014, is further revised; and
0
b. Paragraph (b)(2) introductory text, and paragraphs (b)(2)(i),
(b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii) introductory text, and (b)(3) introductory text
are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 635.27 Quotas.
* * * * *
(b) Sharks. (1) Commercial quotas. The commercial quotas for sharks
specified in this section apply to all sharks harvested from the
management unit. Sharks taken and landed commercially from state
waters, even by fishermen without Federal shark permits, must be
counted against the appropriate commercial quota. Any of the base
quotas listed below, including regional and/or sub-regional base
quotas, may be adjusted per paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Any
sharks landed commercially as ``unclassified'' will be counted against
the appropriate quota based on the species composition calculated from
data collected by observers on non-research trips and/or dealer data.
No prohibited sharks, including parts or pieces of prohibited sharks,
which are listed under heading D of Table 1 of Appendix A to this part,
may be retained except as authorized under Sec. 635.32. For the
purposes of this section, the boundary between the Gulf of Mexico
region and the Atlantic region is defined as a line beginning on the
east coast of Florida at the mainland at 25[deg]20.4' N. lat,
proceeding due east. Any water and land to the south and west of that
boundary is considered, for the purposes of quota monitoring and
setting of quotas, to be within the Gulf of Mexico region. Any water
and land to the north and east of that boundary, for the purposes of
quota monitoring and setting of quotas, is considered to be within the
Atlantic region.
(i) Commercial quotas that apply only in the Atlantic Region. The
commercial quotas specified in this paragraph (b)(1)(i) apply only to
those species of sharks and management groups within the management
unit that were harvested in the Atlantic region, as defined in
paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The Atlantic region is further split
into northern and southern Atlantic sub-regions along 34[deg]00' N.
lat., which is near Wilmington, North Carolina. All fish harvested
within the Atlantic region in fishing catch areas in waters north of
34[deg]00' N. lat. are considered to be from the northern Atlantic sub-
region, and all fish harvested within the Atlantic region in fishing
catch areas in waters south of 34[deg]00' N. lat. are considered to be
from the southern Atlantic sub-region.
(A) Atlantic aggregated LCS. The base annual commercial quota for
Atlantic aggregated LCS is 168.9 mt dw. The northern Atlantic sub-
region base quota is 33.3 mt dw (19.7% of the Atlantic region base
quota) and southern Atlantic sub-region base quota is 135.6 mt dw
(80.3% of the Atlantic region base quota).
(B) Atlantic hammerhead sharks. The regional base annual commercial
quota for hammerhead sharks caught in the Atlantic region is 27.1 mt dw
(51.7% of the overall base quota established in paragraph (b)(1)(iii)
of this section). The northern Atlantic sub-region base quota is 9.2 mt
dw (34.1% of this regional base quota) and southern Atlantic sub-region
base quota is 17.9 mt dw (65.9% of this regional base quota).
(C) Atlantic non-blacknose SCS. The base annual commercial quota
for Atlantic non-blacknose SCS is 176.1 mt dw. The northern Atlantic
sub-region base quota is 53.4 mt dw (30.3% of the Atlantic region base
quota) and southern Atlantic sub-region base quota is 123.7 mt dw
(69.7% of the Atlantic region base quota).
(D) Atlantic blacknose sharks. The base annual commercial quota for
Atlantic blacknose sharks is 18 mt dw. The northern Atlantic sub-region
base quota is 0.0 mt dw (0.0% of the Atlantic region base quota) and
southern Atlantic sub-region base quota is 16.7 mt dw (95.5% of the
Atlantic region base quota).
(ii) Commercial quotas that apply only in the Gulf of Mexico
Region. The commercial quotas specified in this paragraph (b)(1)(ii)
apply only to those species of sharks and management groups within the
management unit that were harvested in the Gulf of Mexico region, as
defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. The Gulf of Mexico region
is further split into western and eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-regions by
a boundary that is drawn along 89[deg]00' W. long., but that
circumvents the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Breton National Wildlife
Refuge at 29[deg]30' N. lat., 89[deg] W. long.; then proceeds to
30[deg]23' N. lat., 89[deg] W. long.; before returning to 89[deg]00' W.
long. All fish harvested within the Gulf of Mexico region in fishing
catch areas in waters westward of 89[deg]00' W. long. are considered to
be from the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region, and all fish harvested
within the Gulf of Mexico region in fishing catch areas in waters east
of 89[deg]00' W. long., including within the Caribbean Sea, are
considered to be from the eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-region.
(A) Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS. The base annual commercial quota
for Gulf of Mexico aggregated LCS is 157.3 mt dw. The eastern Gulf of
Mexico sub-region base quota is 87.0 mt dw (57.5% of the Gulf of Mexico
region base quota) and the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region base quota
is 64.2 mt dw (42.5% of the Gulf of Mexico region base quota).
(B) Gulf of Mexico hammerhead sharks. The regional base annual
commercial quota for hammerhead sharks caught in the Gulf of Mexico
region is 25.3 mt dw (48.3% of the overall base quota established in
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section). The eastern Gulf of Mexico sub-
region base quota is 25.2 mt dw (99.4% of this regional base quota) and
western Gulf of
[[Page 2670]]
Mexico sub-region base quota is 0.0 mt dw (0.0% of this regional base
quota).
(C) Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks. The base annual commercial
quota for Gulf of Mexico blacktip sharks is 256.6 mt dw. The eastern
Gulf of Mexico sub-region base quota is 180.2 mt dw (34.3% of the Gulf
of Mexico region base quota) and the western Gulf of Mexico sub-region
base quota is 94.1 mt dw (65.7% of the Gulf of Mexico region base
quota).
(D) Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS. The base annual commercial
quota for Gulf of Mexico non-blacknose SCS is 68.3 mt dw. This base
quota is not split between the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico sub-
regions.
(E) Gulf of Mexico blacknose sharks. The base annual commercial
quota for Gulf of Mexico blacknose sharks is 2.0 mt dw. This base quota
is not split between the eastern and western Gulf of Mexico sub-
regions.
(iii) Commercial quotas that apply in all regions. The commercial
quotas specified in this section apply to any sharks or management
groups within the management unit that were harvested in either the
Atlantic or Gulf of Mexico regions.
(A) Sandbar sharks. The base annual commercial quota for sandbar
sharks is 75.7 mt dw. This quota, as adjusted per paragragh (b)(2) of
this section, is available only to the owners of commercial shark
vessels that have been issued a valid shark research permit and that
have a NMFS-approved observer onboard.
(B) Research LCS. The base annual commercial quota for Research LCS
is 50 mt dw. This quota, as adjusted per paragragh (b)(2) of this
section, is available only to the owners of commercial shark vessels
that have been issued a valid shark research permit and that have a
NMFS-approved observer onboard.
(C) Hammerhead sharks. The overall base annual commercial quota for
hammerhead sharks is 52.4 mt dw. This overall base quota is further
split for management purposes between the regions defined in paragraphs
(b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
(D) Pelagic sharks. The base annual commercial quotas for pelagic
sharks are 273.0 mt dw for blue sharks, 1.7 mt dw for porbeagle sharks,
and 488.0 mt dw for pelagic sharks other than blue sharks or porbeagle
sharks.
(E) Smoothhound sharks. The base annual commercial quota for
smoothhound sharks is 1782.2 mt dw.
(2) Annual and inseason adjustments of commercial quotas. NMFS will
publish in the Federal Register any annual or inseason adjustments to
the base annual commercial overall, regional, or sub-regional quotas.
No quota will be available, and the fishery will not open, until any
adjustments are published in the Federal Register and effective. Within
a fishing year or at the start of a fishing year, NMFS may transfer
quotas between regions and sub-regions of the same species or
management group, as appropriate, based on the criteria in paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) of this section.
(i) Annual overharvest adjustments.
(A) Adjustments of annual overall and regional base quotas. Except
as noted in this section, if any of the available commercial base or
adjusted overall quotas or regional quotas, as described in this
section, is exceeded in any fishing year, NMFS will deduct an amount
equivalent to the overharvest(s) from the base overall or regional
quota the following fishing year or, depending on the level of
overharvest(s), NMFS may deduct from the overall or regional base quota
an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s) spread over a number of
subsequent fishing years to a maximum of five years. If the blue shark
quota is exceeded, NMFS will reduce the annual commercial quota for
pelagic sharks by the amount that the blue shark quota is exceeded
prior to the start of the next fishing year or, depending on the level
of overharvest(s), deduct an amount equivalent to the overharvest(s)
spread over a number of subsequent fishing years to a maximum of five
years.
(B) Adjustments to sub-regional quotas. If a sub-regional quota is
exceeded but the regional quota is not, NMFS will not reduce the annual
regional base quota the following year and sub-regional quotas will be
determined as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section. If both a
sub-regional quota(s) and the regional quota are exceeded, for each
sub-region in which an overharvest occurred, NMFS will deduct an amount
equivalent to that sub-region's overharvest from that sub-region's
quota the following fishing year or, depending on the level of
overharvest, NMFS may deduct from that sub-region's base quota an
amount equivalent to the overharvest spread over a number of subsequent
fishing years to a maximum of five years.
(C) Adjustments to quotas when the species or management group is
split into regions or sub-regions for management purposes and not as a
result of a stock assessment. If a regional quota for a species that is
split into regions for management purposes only is exceeded but the
overall quota is not, NMFS will not reduce the overall base quota for
that species or management group the following year and the regional
quota will be determined as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section. If both a regional quota(s) and the overall quota is exceeded,
for each region in which an overharvest occurred, NMFS will deduct an
amount equivalent to that region's overharvest from that region's quota
the following fishing year or, depending on the level of
overharvest(s), NMFS may deduct from that region's base quota an amount
equivalent to the overharvest spread over a number of subsequent
fishing years to a maximum of five years. If a sub-regional quota of a
species or management group that is split into regions for management
purposes only is exceeded, NMFS will follow the procedures specified in
paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B) of this section.
(ii) Annual underharvest adjustments. Except as noted in this
paragraph, if any of the annual base or adjusted quotas, including
regional quotas, as described in this section is not harvested, NMFS
may adjust the annual base quota, including regional quotas, depending
on the status of the stock or management group. If a species or a
specific species within a management group is declared to be
overfished, to have overfishing occurring, or to have an unknown
status, NMFS may not adjust the following fishing year's base quota,
including regional quota, for any underharvest, and the following
fishing year's quota will be equal to the base annual quota. If the
species or all species in a management group is not declared to be
overfished, to have overfishing occurring, or to have an unknown
status, NMFS may increase the following year's base annual quota,
including regional quota, by an equivalent amount of the underharvest
up to 50 percent above the base annual quota. Except as noted in
paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, underharvests are not
transferable between regions, species, and/or management groups.
(iii) Determination criteria for inseason and annual quota
transfers between regions and sub-regions. Inseason or annual quota
transfers of quotas between regions or sub-regions may be conducted
only for species or management groups where the species are the same
between regions or sub-regions and the quota is split between regions
or sub-regions for management purposes and not as a result of a stock
assessment. Before making any inseason or annual quota transfer between
regions or sub-regions, NMFS will consider the following criteria and
other relevant factors:
* * * * *
(3) Opening commercial fishing season criteria. NMFS will file with
the
[[Page 2671]]
Office of the Federal Register for publication notification of the
opening dates of the overall, regional, and sub-regional shark
fisheries for each species and management group. Before making any
decisions, NMFS would consider the following criteria and other
relevant factors in establishing the opening dates:
* * * * *
0
6. In Sec. 635.28, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 635.28 Fishery closures.
* * * * *
(b) Sharks. (1) A shark fishery that meets any of the following
circumstances is closed and subject to the requirements of Sec.
635.28(b)(6):
(i) No overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota, as applicable,
is specified at Sec. 635.27(b)(1);
(ii) The overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota, as
applicable, specified at Sec. 635.27(b)(1) is zero;
(iii) After accounting for overharvests as specified at Sec.
635.27(b)(2), the overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota, as
applicable, is determined to be zero or close to zero and NMFS has
closed the fishery by publication of a notice in the Federal Register;
(iv) The species is a prohibited species as listed under Table 1 of
Appendix A of this part; or
(v) Landings of the species and/or management group meet the
requirements specified in Sec. 635.28(b)(2) through (5) and NMFS has
closed the fishery by publication of a notice in the Federal Register.
(2) Non-linked quotas: If the overall, regional, and/or sub-
regional quota of a species or management group is not linked to
another species or management group and that overall, regional, and/or
sub-regional quota is available as specified by a publication in the
Federal Register, then that overall, regional, and/or sub-regional
commercial fishery for the shark species or management group will open
as specified in Sec. 635.27(b). When NMFS calculates that the overall,
regional, and/or sub-regional landings for a shark species and/or
management group, as specified in Sec. 635.27(b)(1), has reached or is
projected to reach 80 percent of the available overall, regional, and/
or sub-regional quota as specified in Sec. 635.27(b)(1), NMFS will
file for publication with the Office of the Federal Register a notice
of an overall, regional, and/or sub-regional closure, as applicable,
for that shark species and/or shark management group that will be
effective no fewer than 5 days from date of filing. From the effective
date and time of the closure until NMFS announces, via the publication
of a notice in the Federal Register, that additional overall, regional,
and/or sub-regional quota is available and the season is reopened, the
overall, regional, and/or sub-regional fisheries for that shark species
or management group are closed, even across fishing years.
(3) Linked Quotas: As specified in paragraph (b)(3) of this
section, the overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quotas of some
shark species and/or management groups are linked to the overall,
regional, and/or sub-regional quotas of other shark species and/or
management groups. For each pair of linked species and/or management
groups, if the overall, regional, and/or sub-regional quota specified
in Sec. 635.27(b)(1) is available for both of the linked species and/
or management groups as specified by a publication in the Federal
Register, then the overall, regional, and/or sub-regional commercial
fishery for both of the linked species and/or management groups will
open as specified in Sec. 635.27(b)(1). When NMFS calculates that the
overall, regional, and/or sub-regional landings for any species and/or
management group of a linked group has reached or is projected to reach
80 percent of the available overall, regional, and/or sub-regional
quota as specified in Sec. 635.27(b)(1), NMFS will file for
publication with the Office of the Federal Register a notice of an
overall, regional, and/or sub-regional closure for all of the species
and/or management groups in that linked group that will be effective no
fewer than 5 days from date of filing. From the effective date and time
of the closure until NMFS announces, via the publication of a notice in
the Federal Register, that additional overall, regional, and/or sub-
regional quota is available and the season is reopened, the overall,
regional, and/or sub-regional fishery for all species and/or management
groups in that linked group is closed, even across fishing years.
(4) The quotas of the following species and/or management groups
are linked:
(i) Northern Atlantic hammerhead sharks and northern Atlantic
aggregated LCS.
(ii) Southern Atlantic hammerhead sharks and southern Atlantic
aggregated LCS.
(iii) Eastern Gulf of Mexico hammerhead sharks and eastern Gulf of
Mexico aggregated LCS.
(iv) Southern Atlantic blacknose sharks and southern Atlantic non-
blacknose SCS.
(v) Gulf of Mexico blacknose sharks and Gulf of Mexico non-
blacknose SCS.
(5) NMFS may close the regional or sub-regional Gulf of Mexico
blacktip shark management group(s) before landings reach, or are
expected to reach, 80 percent of the quota. Before taking any inseason
action, NMFS will consider the following criteria and other relevant
factors:
(i) Estimated Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark season length based on
available sub-regional quotas and average sub-regional weekly catch
rates during the current fishing year and from previous years;
(ii) Variations in regional and/or sub-regional seasonal
distribution, abundance, or migratory patterns of blacktip sharks,
hammerhead sharks, and aggregated LCS based on scientific and fishery
information;
(iii) Effects of the adjustment on accomplishing the objectives of
the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments;
(iv) The amount of remaining shark quotas in the relevant sub-
regions, to date, based on dealer or other reports; and,
(v) The regional and/or sub-regional catch rates of the relevant
shark species or management group(s), to date, based on dealer or other
reports.
(6) When the overall, regional, and/or sub-regional fishery for a
shark species and/or management group is closed, a fishing vessel,
issued a Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit pursuant to Sec.
635.4, may not possess, retain, land, or sell a shark of that species
and/or management group that was caught within the closed region or
sub-region, except under the conditions specified in Sec. 635.22(a)
and (c) or if the vessel possesses a valid shark research permit under
Sec. 635.32, a NMFS-approved observer is onboard, and the sandbar and/
or Research LCS fishery, as applicable, is open. A shark dealer, issued
a permit pursuant to Sec. 635.4, may not purchase or receive a shark
of that species and/or management group that was caught within the
closed region or sub-region from a vessel issued a Federal Atlantic
commercial shark permit, except that a permitted shark dealer or
processor may possess sharks that were caught in the closed region or
sub-region that were harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or
bartered, prior to the effective date of the closure and were held in
storage. Under a closure for a shark species or management group, a
shark dealer, issued a permit pursuant to Sec. 635.4 may, in
accordance with State regulations, purchase or receive a shark of that
species or management group if the shark was harvested, off-loaded, and
sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel
[[Page 2672]]
that fishes only in State waters and that has not been issued a Federal
Atlantic commercial shark permit, HMS Angling permit, or HMS Charter/
Headboat permit pursuant to Sec. 635.4. Additionally, under an
overall, a regional, or a sub-regional closure for a shark species and/
or management group, a shark dealer, issued a permit pursuant to Sec.
635.4, may purchase or receive a shark of that species group if the
sandbar or Research LCS fishery, as applicable, is open and the shark
was harvested, off-loaded, and sold, traded, or bartered from a vessel
issued a valid shark research permit (per Sec. 635.32) that had a
NMFS-approved observer on board during the trip the shark was
collected.
(7) If the Atlantic Tunas Longline category quota is closed as
specified in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, vessels that have
pelagic longline gear on board cannot possess, retain, land, or sell
sharks.
* * * * *
0
7. In Sec. 635.31, paragraphs (c)(1) and (4) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 635.31 Restrictions on sale and purchase.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Persons that own or operate a vessel that possesses, retains,
or lands a shark from the management unit may sell such shark only if
the vessel has a valid commercial shark permit issued under this part.
Persons may possess, retain, land, and sell a shark only to a
federally-permitted dealer and only when the fishery for that species,
management group, region, and/or sub-region has not been closed, as
specified in Sec. 635.28(b). Persons that own or operate a vessel that
has pelagic longline gear onboard can possess, retain, land, and sell a
shark only if the Atlantic Tunas Longline category has not been closed,
as specified in Sec. 635.28(a).
* * * * *
(4) Only dealers who have a valid Federal Atlantic shark dealer
permit and who have submitted reports to NMFS according to reporting
requirements of Sec. 635.5(b)(1)(ii) may first receive a shark from an
owner or operator of a vessel that has, or is required to have, a valid
Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit issued under this part.
Dealers may purchase a shark only from an owner or operator of a vessel
who has a valid commercial shark permit issued under this part, except
that dealers may purchase a shark from an owner or operator of a vessel
who does not have a Federal Atlantic commercial shark permit if that
vessel fishes exclusively in state waters and does not possess a HMS
Angling permit or HMS Charter/Headboat permit pursuant to Sec. 635.4.
Atlantic shark dealers may purchase a sandbar shark only from an owner
or operator of a vessel who has a valid shark research permit and who
had a NMFS-approved observer onboard the vessel for the trip in which
the sandbar shark was collected. Atlantic shark dealers may purchase a
shark from an owner or operator of a fishing vessel who has a valid
commercial shark permit issued under this part only when the fishery
for that species, management group, region, and/or sub-region has not
been closed, as specified in Sec. 635.28(b). Atlantic shark dealers
may first receive a shark from a vessel that has pelagic longline gear
onboard only if the Atlantic Tunas Longline category has not been
closed, as specified in Sec. 635.28(a).
* * * * *
0
8. In Sec. 635.34, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 635.34 Adjustment of management measures.
(a) NMFS may adjust the IBQ shares or resultant allocations for
bluefin tuna, as specified in Sec. 635.15; catch limits for bluefin
tuna, as specified in Sec. 635.23; the overall, regional, and/or sub-
regional quotas for bluefin tuna, sharks, swordfish, and northern
albacore tuna as specified in Sec. 635.27; the retention limits for
sharks, as specified at Sec. 635.24; the regional retention limits for
Swordfish General Commercial permit holders, as specified at Sec.
635.24; the marlin landing limit, as specified in Sec. 635.27(d); and
the minimum sizes for Atlantic blue marlin, white marlin, and
roundscale spearfish as specified in Sec. 635.20.
(b) In accordance with the framework procedures in the 2006
Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS may establish or modify for species or
species groups of Atlantic HMS the following management measures:
Maximum sustainable yield or optimum yield based on the latest stock
assessment or updates in the SAFE report; domestic quotas; recreational
and commercial retention limits, including target catch requirements;
size limits; fishing years or fishing seasons; shark fishing regions,
or regional and/or sub-regional quotas; species in the management unit
and the specification of the species groups to which they belong;
species in the prohibited shark species group; classification system
within shark species groups; permitting and reporting requirements;
workshop requirements; the IBQ shares or resultant allocations for
bluefin tuna; administration of the IBQ program (including but not
limited to requirements pertaining to leasing of IBQ allocations,
regional or minimum IBQ share requirements, IBQ share caps (individual
or by category), permanent sale of shares, NED IBQ rules, etc.); time/
area restrictions; allocations among user groups; gear prohibitions,
modifications, or use restriction; effort restrictions; observer
coverage requirements; EM requirements; essential fish habitat; and
actions to implement ICCAT recommendations, as appropriate.
* * * * *
0
9. In Sec. 635.71, paragraphs (d)(3) and (d)(4) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 635.71 Prohibitions
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(3) Retain, possess, or land a shark of a species or management
group when the fishery for that species, management group, region, and/
or sub-region is closed, as specified in Sec. 635.28(b).
(4) Sell or purchase a shark of a species or management group when
the fishery for that species, management group, region, and/or sub-
region is closed, as specified in Sec. 635.28(b).
* * * * *
0
10. In Appendix A to Part 635, Section B of Table 1 is revised to read
as follows:
[[Page 2673]]
Appendix A to Part 635--Species Tables
Table 1 of Appendix A to Part 635--Oceanic Sharks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
B. Small Coastal Sharks.
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Atlantic sharpnose, Rhizoprionodon
terraenovae.
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico blacknose, Carcharhinus acronotus.
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico bonnethead, Sphyrna tiburo.
Finetooth, Carcharhinus isodon.
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2015-00548 Filed 1-16-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P