[Federal Register: July 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 144)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 41391-41412] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27jy07-16] [[Page 41391]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Part II Department of Commerce ----------------------------------------------------------------------- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 50 CFR Parts 600 and 635 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures; Proposed Rule [[Page 41392]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 600 and 635 [Docket No. 0612242866-7310-01] RIN 0648-AU89 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of the Fishery Management Plan (FMP); request for comments; public hearings. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of the draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its accompanying proposed rule. Amendment 2 examines different management alternatives available to rebuild sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks, consistent with the 2006 shark stock assessments, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson- Stevens Act), and other applicable law. The proposed rule to implement Amendment 2 would, among other things, allow for a limited shark research fishery for sandbar sharks, establish a trip limit for commercial harvest of non-sandbar large coastal sharks (LCS), prohibit the landing and possession of porbeagle sharks, require all sharks landed to have fins attached through landing, eliminate the regions and trimester seasons, and modify the species that can be landed by recreational fishermen. These changes could affect all fishermen who fish for sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea. DATES: Comments on this proposed rule and draft Amendment 2 must be received no later than 5 p.m. on October 10, 2007. Ten public hearings on this proposed rule and draft Amendment 2 will be held in August and September 2007. For specific dates and times see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. ADDRESSES: The public hearings will be held in Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Texas. For specific locations see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document. Written comments on the proposed rule and draft Amendment 2 may be submitted to Michael Clark, Highly Migratory Species Management Division: Email: ShkA2@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following identifier: Shark amendment 2 comments. Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope ``Shark amendment 2 comments.'' Fax: 301-713-1917. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Michael Clark, Highly Migratory Species Management Division and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285. Copies of the draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP, the latest shark stock assessments, and other documents relevant to this rule are available from the Highly Migratory Species Management Division website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms or by contacting Heather Halter at 301-713-2347. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Clark, Karyl Brewster-Geisz, or LeAnn Southward Hogan at 301-713-2347 or fax 301-713-1917 or Jackie Wilson at 404-806-7622 or fax 404-806-9188. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Consolidated HMS FMP is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. Based on the results of the 2005 Canadian porbeagle shark stock assessment, the 2006 dusky shark stock assessment, and the 2005/2006 LCS stock assessment, NMFS has determined that a number of shark fisheries are overfished and an amendment to the current Consolidated HMS FMP is needed to develop management measures to rebuild overfished shark stocks and to prevent overfishing. Unlike past assessments, the recently completed 2005/2006 LCS stock assessment determined that it is inappropriate to assess the LCS complex as a whole due to the variation in life history parameters, different intrinsic rates of increase, and different catch and abundance data for all species included in the LCS complex. Based on these results, NMFS changed the status of the LCS complex from overfished to unknown (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006). According to this stock assessment, sandbar sharks are overfished (SSF2004/SSFMSY = 0.72; SSF is spawning stock fecundity and was used a proxy for biomass), and overfishing is occurring (F2004 / FMSY = 3.72). As described in the 2005/2006 stock assessment, spawning stock fecundity, which is the sum of the number of mature females at age times their pup-production, is used instead of biomass because biomass does not influence pup production in sharks. The assessment recommends that rebuilding could be achieved with 70 percent probability by 2070 with a total allowable catch (TAC) across all fisheries that catch sharks of 220 metric tons (mt) whole weight (ww) each year (158 mt dressed weight (dw)) and fishing pressure (F) between 0.0009 and 0.011. The proposed rebuilding plan mirrors the rebuilding plan recommended by the stock assessment. Based on tagging studies that suggested that the blacktip shark stocks are geographically distinct and isolated, the 2005/2006 stock assessment assessed blacktip sharks for the first time as two separate populations: Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic. NMFS has declared that the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark population is not overfished with no overfishing occurring (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006). The 2005/2006 stock assessment indicated that the Gulf of Mexico population is healthy and that current catches should not increase in order to keep this population at a sustainable level. For the blacktip shark population in the South Atlantic region, the 2005/2006 assessment was unable to provide estimates of stock status or reliable population projections, but indicated that current catch levels should not change. NMFS has declared that the South Atlantic blacktip shark population is unknown (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006). In 1999, dusky sharks, which were in the LCS complex, were placed on the prohibited species list due to their low population growth rate and low reproductive potential. In 2003, in Amendment 1 to the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (68 FR 74746, December 24, 2003), NMFS established a mid-Atlantic shark time/area closure to protect dusky sharks and juvenile sandbar sharks. Due to high catch rates of dusky sharks in the shark bottom longline fishery in the mid-Atlantic closed area and the high mortality of dusky sharks on bottom longline gear, NMFS closed this area to bottom longline fishing from January 1 through July 31 of every year, starting in January 2005. NMFS released the first dusky-specific shark assessment in May [[Page 41393]] 2006 (71 FR 30123, May 25, 2006). The 2006 dusky shark stock assessment used data through 2003 and indicates that dusky sharks are overfished (B2003/BMSY = 0.15 0.47) with overfishing occurring (F2004/FMSY = 1.68 1,810). The assessment indicates that rebuilding for dusky sharks could require 100 to 400 years. Based on these results, NMFS declared the status of dusky sharks as overfished with overfishing occurring (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006). The proposed rule would establish a rebuilding plan to rebuild dusky sharks in 100 to 400 years consistent with the stock assessment. This rebuilding plan includes keeping dusky sharks on the prohibited species list and actions to reduce dusky shark mortality and bycatch, to the extent practicable. Canada has conducted stock assessments on porbeagle sharks in 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005. Reduced Canadian porbeagle quotas in 2002 brought the 2004 exploitation rate to a sustainable level. According to the 2005 recovery assessment report conducted by Canada, the North Atlantic porbeagle stock has a 70 percent probability of recovery in approximately 100 years if F is less than or equal to 0.04. To date, the United States has not conducted a stock assessment on porbeagle sharks. NMFS has reviewed the Canadian stock assessment and deems it to be the best available science and appropriate to use for U.S. domestic management purposes because porbeagle sharks are a unit stock that extends into U.S. waters. The Canadian assessment indicates that porbeagle sharks are overfished (SSN2004/ BSSNMSY = 0.15 0.32; SSN is spawning stock number and used as a proxy for biomass). However, the Canadian assessment indicates that overfishing is not occurring (F2004/FMSY = 0.83). Based on these results, NMFS declared porbeagle sharks as overfished, but not experiencing overfishing (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006). While United States vessels take only a small proportion of the porbeagle sharks harvested in the Northwest Atlantic, NMFS proposes measures to increase the likelihood that fishing mortality remains below 0.04 and rebuilding occurs in 100 years. Because Canada has the largest harvest of porbeagle sharks, the proposed rule would establish a rebuilding plan for porbeagle sharks that is consistent with the Canadian assessment. This rebuilding plan includes placing porbeagle sharks on the prohibited species list to prevent fishing effort from increasing in the future and minimizing porbeagle shark mortality and bycatch, to the extent practicable. NMFS announced its intent to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65086) and held seven scoping meetings in January 2007 (72 FR 123, January 3, 2007). In March 2006, NMFS presented a predraft of the Amendment 2 to the HMS Advisory Panel (72 FR 7860, February 21, 2007). Based in part on the comments received during scoping and from the HMS Advisory Panel, NMFS proposes a number of management measures that would implement Amendment 2. Consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP objectives, the Magnuson- Stevens Act, and other applicable law, the objectives for this proposed rule are to: (1) implement rebuilding plans for sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks; (2) provide an opportunity for the sustainable harvest of blacktip and other sharks, as appropriate; (3) prevent overfishing of Atlantic sharks; (4) analyze bottom longline time/area closures and take necessary action to maintain or modify the closures, as appropriate; and (5) improve, to the extent practicable, data collections or data collection programs. In addition to the proposed management alternative described below, NMFS proposes to take additional administrative actions. These include: (1) allowing fishermen to remove hooks from smalltooth sawfish (Sec. 635.21 (d)(3)) based on a March 23, 2007, memorandum from the Office of Protected Resources changing this requirement in the 2003 Biological Opinion for Atlantic sharks; (2) requiring stock assessments at least once every 5 years; (3) allowing for the release of the annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report by fall of each year; and (4) clarifying various existing regulations, for example stating that only the first receiver needs a shark dealer permit and that shark dealer reports must be species-specific. NMFS prepared a Draft EIS (DEIS) for the draft Amendment 2 that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the DEIS/draft Amendment 2 is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to publish the notice of availability for this DEIS on or about the same date that this proposed rule publishes. The following is a summary of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIS for Amendment 2. Additional analyses and descriptions are provided in the DEIS. NMFS fully considered five different alternative suites based on the above-described objectives and best available scientific information. Based on the recommendations of the latest stock assessments, significant reductions in quotas are needed to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. The necessary reductions effectively preclude operation of the shark fishery as it has been prosecuted in past years. As reflected below, NMFS has developed alternative suites that would provide for some fishing of sharks consistent with the stock assessments and that would allow for continued collection of data needed for stock assessments and evaluation of conservation and management measures. Each alternative suite analyzed certain management actions under seven different topics including quotas/species complexes, retention limits, time/area closures, reporting, seasons, regions, and recreational measures. The proposed alternative discussed below is the preferred alternative in the DEIS. Analyses of the Proposed Alternative Suite Under the proposed alternative (alternative 4), NMFS would, among other things, remove sandbar sharks from the LCS complex; establish a commercial sandbar shark quota of 116.6 mt dw; establish a commercial non-sandbar LCS quota of 541.2 mt dw; add porbeagle sharks to the prohibited species list; establish a shark research fishery that would allow a limited number of commercial vessels to fish a limited number of trips for all LCS, including sandbar sharks; reduce the retention limit for all other commercial vessels to 22 non-sandbar LCS and 0 sandbar sharks; require fins, including the tail, to be landed attached to all sharks; maintain the mid-Atlantic shark closed area and implement several other closed areas from Florida through North Carolina, per the recommendation of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC); require dealer reports be received (rather than postmarked) by a certain date; eliminate the trimesters and regions and replace them with one fishing season starting January 1 and one region including the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea; and limit recreational anglers to possessing only those shark species that are easily identified, including bonnethead, nurse, tiger, great hammerhead, smooth hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, lemon, sharpnose, shortfin mako, common thresher, oceanic whitetip, and blue sharks. A. Quotas, Species Complexes, and Retention Limits Under the proposed alternative, the current LCS complex would be split [[Page 41394]] into two groups: sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS. The sandbar shark quota would be 116.6 mt dw (257,056 lb dw) and the commercial non- sandbar LCS quota would be 541.2 mt dw (1,196,129.5 lb dw). The 116.6 mt dw quota for sandbar sharks would be allocated to the vessels operating in the research fishery. In addition, based on catch composition in the bottom longline observer program, NMFS anticipates that 50 mt dw (110,230 lb dw) of the non-sandbar LCS quota would be caught in the research fishery. The rest of the non-sandbar LCS quota could be taken by vessels operating outside of the research fishery. These quotas are based on recommendations from the most recent LCS stock assessment. Therefore, this level of fishing effort would stop overfishing of sandbar sharks and allow sandbar sharks to rebuild as well as keep other LCS, such as the blacktip shark, from being overfished and from experiencing overfishing. Establishing a separate category for sandbar sharks from the LCS complex is mainly administrative in nature and should only affect how NMFS monitors the sandbar shark quota. The establishment of a separate sandbar shark category by itself will not impact fishermen, as they currently record shark interactions on a species basis in the logbooks. Similarly, establishing the other LCS into a non-sandbar LCS category is similar to how the LCS fishery has been managed in the past and should have few economic or social impacts. However, as described below, the quota reductions and retention limits could have negative economic and social impacts. Under the proposed alternative, vessels with either a directed or incidental shark limited access permit (LAP) could apply to participate in the shark research fishery. Each year NMFS would publish shark research objectives for the year and request proposals that meet these objectives. Shark fishermen who were interested in participating would apply for a permit to fish in the shark research fishery. Based on the research objectives for a given year, NMFS scientists and managers would select a few vessels (i.e., 5-10 vessels) each year to conduct the prescribed research. Selected vessels would work with NMFS to conduct shark research. Vessels selected for the research fishery would be subject to 100 percent observer coverage; however, fishermen in the shark research fishery would be afforded higher trip limits and could sell their catch, including sandbar sharks, compared to vessels outside the research fishery. This research fishery would allow the collection of fishery-dependent data for future stock assessments as well as allow NMFS and fishermen to conduct cooperative research to meet the shark research objectives for NMFS. Only vessels operating within the research fishery would be allowed to harvest the sandbar shark quota until 80 percent of the sandbar shark or non-sandbar LCS quota was met. At that time, the shark fishery would shut down to account for state landings and ensure the 116.6 mt dw commercial sandbar quota was not overharvested. Retention limits of sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS for vessels operating in the shark research fishery would depend on the research objectives of a given year. For example, assuming a catch composition of 70 percent sandbar sharks (and hence, 30 percent non-sandbar LCS) the 116.6 mt dw sandbar quota could be fulfilled in 92 trips with a 4,000 lb dw sandbar and non-sandbar LCS trip limit (70 percent x 4,000 lb dw trip limit = 2,800 lb dw sandbar sharks per trip; 92 trips x 2,800 lb dw of sandbar sharks = 257,600 lb dw or 116.6 mt dw). On average, under the current regulations, 872 directed permit holder trips were made under the 4,000 lb dw LCS trip limit from 2003 to 2005. NMFS expects the number of trips under the research shark permit to be lower than the current average number of trips per year, and therefore, anticipates that the proposed alternative would have positive ecological impacts for sandbar sharks. Each shark research permit would specify the amount of sandbar and non-sandbar LCS allowed per trip. To participate in the research fishery, vessel owners holding a directed or incidental shark LAP would need to submit an application annually to NMFS for a shark research permit. The shark research permit would be considered a specifically authorized activity, and fishermen would apply in a manner similar to how they apply for an exempted fishing permit (EFP). NMFS would review all applications and would issue permits to those vessel owners that meet certain criteria as specified in the regulations and also meet the published shark research objectives for that year. Specifically, NMFS would need to ensure that eligible vessels are spread throughout the range of the shark fishery and that vessels could fish for sharks throughout the year. The number of vessels issued a shark research permit each year may vary depending on available quota and the amount expected to be collected by each individual vessel. Depending on the data needed from the fishery that year for stock assessment and other scientific purposes (e.g., comparison of catch rates between circle and J hooks), NMFS may include other criteria, as needed, including the need to attend specific training sessions such as the shark identification workshops that are currently required for shark dealers. Vessel owners issued a shark research permit would not need to submit the interim or annual reports required with other specifically authorized activities. Rather, vessel owners would need to continue submitting logbook reports as required when fishing under the shark LAP. Once issued, the shark research permit would be valid only when a NMFS-approved observer is on board and all other terms and conditions of the permit are being followed. Vessels in the shark research fishery would be required to sell sharks, including sandbar sharks, to only permitted dealers, as is currently required. NMFS is considering requiring dealers to obtain specific information from each vessel owner or operator for each sandbar shark landed. This information may be required to accompany each sandbar shark to final disposition. NMFS is also considering other methods of ensuring that sandbar sharks are landed only by vessels issued a shark research permit with an observer on board but is not proposing a specific method at this time. Vessels that do not have a shark research permit, or vessels that have been issued a shark research permit but do not have a NMFS- approved observer on board, could still land 22 non-sandbar LCS per trip and SCS and pelagic sharks subject to the current retention limits determined by their permit type. On average, directed permit holders landed 40 non-sandbar LCS per trip as reported in the Coastal Fisheries and HMS Logbooks from 2003 to 2005. Therefore, this would be a 48 percent reduction in non-sandbar LCS per trip for directed permit holders. Incidental permit holders landed 3.7 non-sandbar LCS per trip on average as reported in the Coastal Fisheries and HMS Logbooks from 2003 to 2005. Therefore, NMFS does not anticipate any adverse effects on incidental permit holders. Total landings of non-sandbar LCS by boats outside the research fishery would be limited to approximately 491 mt dw (assuming, as discussed previously, that 50 mt dw of the non- sandbar LCS quota would be caught while fishermen filled the 116.6 mt dw of sandbar shark quota in the research fishery), in order to ensure that the total 541.2 mt dw of the LCS quota would not be exceeded. It is anticipated that sandbar shark discards will occur on gear such as pelagic longline (PLL) gear, which could [[Page 41395]] interact with sandbar sharks from vessels operating outside the research fishery (approximately 4.3 mt dw). Shark discards in the research fishery are anticipated to occur as they have during directed shark trips in the past. Outside of the research fishery, vessels would not be able to land sandbar sharks and would have to discard them. Because of these discards in and out of the research fishery, it is anticipated that discards of sandbar sharks may increase by 36 percent compared to current discards. However, commercial landings and discards would still be reduced by 82 percent compared to alternative 1 (no action: 728 mt dw in landings + 9.6 mt dw in discards = 737.6 mt dw total; alternative 4: 116.6 mt dw in landings + 13.1 mt dw in discards = 129.7 mt dw). The total commercial landings and discards plus an estimated 27 mt dw of recreational landings (156.7 mt dw total) is still below the 158.3 mt dw sandbar shark TAC recommended in the 2005/ 2006 LCS stock assessment. Therefore, quotas and retention limits under the proposed alternative would meet the rebuilding plan for sandbar sharks and would have positive ecological impacts on this stock. Additionally, since the boats in the research fishery would be directing on sharks, it is assumed that dusky shark discards would occur during those research trips as they have in the past when there were directed BLL trips. However, since the overall number of boats operating in the research fishery would be limited, it is anticipated that dusky shark discards could decrease by 72 percent under the proposed alternative, resulting in positive ecological impacts for this stock. Based on the small number of boats that could fish for sandbar sharks in the research fishery, most current directed and incidental permit holders would not be allowed to land sandbar sharks, resulting in negative socio-economic impacts for these permit holders. In addition, since directed permit holders presumably make a greater percentage of their gross revenues from sandbar shark landings, directed permit holders outside the research fishery would be expected to have larger negative socioeconomic impacts compared to incidental permit holders outside of the research fishery. However, to mitigate some of these impacts, directed and incidental permit holders outside of the research fishery would still be allowed to land non-sandbar LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks. In 2006 ex-vessel prices, it is estimated that vessels operating in the research fishery could make $490,411 in gross revenues of sandbar shark and non-sandbar LCS landings. Vessels operating outside of the research fishery could make approximately $1,502,994 in gross revenues. In total, vessels operating in and outside of the research fishery are expected to have gross revenues of $1,993,435 in sandbar shark and non- sandbar LCS landings. This is a 48 percent reduction in gross revenues from sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS under the no action alternative (gross revenues based on current directed and incidental permit holders' landings were $3,824,589). Also under the proposed alternative, porbeagle sharks would be prohibited in the commercial and recreational sectors. This is expected to have neutral ecological impacts for this stock since the United States has had minimal landings of this species. In addition, since most porbeagle sharks are caught on pelagic longline gear, reductions in fishing effort associated with BLL gear from reductions in the sandbar shark quota are not anticipated to have much of an ecological benefit for this species. Prohibiting the retention of porbeagle sharks is anticipated to increase dead discards by 0.4 porbeagle sharks per year. Based on the average porbeagle shark landings from 2002 to 2004 (1.5 mt dw or 3,402 lb dw) and 2006 ex-vessel prices, placing porbeagle sharks on the prohibited species list is equivalent to a $6,081 gross revenues loss in porbeagle shark landings. This alternative would also change how NMFS adjusts quotas. Under the current regulations, NMFS adjusts the shark quota based on under- and overharvests from the previous year. Under this alternative, adjustments would be based, in part, on the status of the stock. If the status of the stock is considered to be unknown or overfished and/or if overfishing is occurring, NMFS would not adjust for underharvests. NMFS would continue to adjust for overharvests. These measures should ensure that overfished species continue to rebuild under the rebuilding plan and species that are unknown or that have overfishing occurring do not become overfished. However, if the status of the stock is known or not overfished and if overfishing is not occurring, then NMFS would adjust for underharvests until the quota is 50 percent above the base quota (e.g., if the base quota is 100 mt, NMFS would adjust it to a maximum of 150 mt). As with the no action alternative, NMFS would continue to adjust for overharvests. These measures should ensure that species that are not overfished do not become overfished. This alternative would also require all shark fins, including the tail, to be landed attached to the shark carcass. Fishermen could cut the fin partially off the carcass as long as skin remains attaching the fin to the carcass. This type of cut should allow the fins to be folded against the carcass for storage purposes and should ensure that the quality of the meat does not degrade. Requiring the fins to remain on the carcass is a change from the current fishery, which allows fishermen to cut the fins off the carcass prior to landing as long as both the fins and carcass are landed together. Keeping the fins attached to the carcass should have some positive ecological impacts in that species identification should be improved for reporting and enforcement purposes, and enforcement of the ban on shark finning would be facilitated. The overall economic impacts should also be minor as fishermen should be able to receive the same ex-vessel price for the meat and fins but, in the short term, the market would likely undergo some changes as fishermen and dealers work out who would be responsible for cutting the fins off the shark once the shark is offloaded. This alternative would also modify the current quota available for EFPs and display permits. This alternative would not limit the sharks available under scientific research permits or letters of acknowledgment. The current shark quota for EFPs and display permits is 60 mt ww. This alternative would not allow for dusky sharks to be taken under EFPs or display permits. This alternative would also split sandbar sharks out of the 60 mt ww quota and provide for quotas of 1.4 mt ww (1 mt dw) for sandbar shark EFPs, 1.4 mt ww for sandbar shark display permits, and 57.2 mt ww (41.2 mt dw) for all other shark species, other than dusky sharks. Except for dusky sharks, these quota changes are mainly administrative in nature because the quota has not been taken in the past. However, all of these changes should help NMFS provide more control over shark species that are on long-term rebuilding plans. B. Time/Area Closures Also, under the proposed alternative, NMFS would maintain the mid- Atlantic shark closed area to BLL gear and the current BLL closures in the Caribbean that were implemented in March 2007 (72 FR 5633, February 7, 2007). Therefore, the ecological impacts associated with these closures would be the same as described under the no action alternative. In addition, NMFS would implement the marine protected areas (MPAs) recommended by the SAFMC that range from North Carolina to the Florida Keys. These MPAs were proposed in [[Page 41396]] Amendment 14 to the Snapper Grouper FMP. A total of 19 MPAs were initially considered in Amendment 14, and 8 of the MPAs were preferred in the SAFMC's final recommendations in June 2007. The eight MPAs include one off southern North Carolina, three off South Carolina, one off Georgia, and three off Florida. The primary purpose of Amendment 14 is to protect the population and habitat of slow growing, long-lived deepwater snapper grouper species (speckled hind, snowy grouper, Warsaw grouper, yellowedge grouper, misty grouper, golden tilefish, and blueline tilefish) from directed fishing pressure. The only HMS authorized gear that has the potential to interact with these species is bottom longline gear. HMS permitted vessels that fish with bottom longline gear normally target large coastal sharks, but small coastal, pelagic and dogfish species are also caught. Bycatch may include groupers, tilefishes, wahoo, skates, rays, and other species. NMFS agreed to analyze the ecological and socio-economic impacts of the MPAs on HMS fisheries and to consider rulemaking to prohibit shark bottom longline gear in the preferred MPAs. NMFS used shark bottom longline observer program data from 1994- 2006 to evaluate the impact of the shark bottom longline fishery on the snapper-grouper complex within the all of the MPAs initially considered by the SAFMC. Using a Geographic Information System (GIS), NMFS plotted the locations of all observed sets on the MPAs in the South Atlantic region to provide an overview of the number and locations of sets that intersected the MPAs. Since most of the MPAs are relatively small (< 10 nautical miles in diameter), the sets tend to either start or end outside of the MPAs. In most cases, only a portion of the set intersected with an MPA and few if any sets were entirely within the MPAs. However, if a set intersected any portion of an MPA, then all bycatch reported on that set was counted as occurring in the MPA regardless of where on the set it occurred. NMFS used this approach because it is not possible to determine where on a set the bycatch actually occurred. Of the sets that intersected the MPAs, a large portion of each set actually occurred primarily outside the MPAs. As a result, the number of bycatch species reported as occurring in the MPAs is most likely an overestimate. Of the 1,563 observed sets over the approximately twelve-year period, a total of 34 sets (2 percent) intersected all of the MPAs initially considered by the SAFMC. Of those, only two sets occurred entirely within the boundary of the proposed MPAs (one in Snowy Grouper Wreck and one in North Florida MPA). A concentration of observed sets is apparent in the areas north of Cape Canaveral. The remaining sets tend to be more widely spaced and although observer coverage is not necessarily uniform, the level of observer coverage was based on the level of fishing effort in the different areas. Few sets occurred in the MPAs because they are located on the edge of the shelf in deeper water where currents are strong and gear may be lost. Most bottom longline sets occur shoreward of the 200 m depth contour with the exception of the Snowy Grouper Wreck MPA. The few sets that did occur in the MPAs should not be considered representative of overall shark fishing effort, and may in fact be considered anomalous based on the low number of observed sets that occurred in these areas. As very few sets occurred in the MPAs, very little shark fishing effort and associated bycatch occurred in the MPAs, resulting in minimal ecological impacts. Using the observer data and fishing effort reported in the Coastal Fisheries Logbook, NMFS estimated the total bycatch and expanded coastal shark catches within all of the MPAs initially considered by the SAFMC to obtain overall estimates of catch within the proposed MPAs. Only one of the original MPAs, Snowy Wreck, had sufficient data to produce statistically robust expanded bycatch estimates. Based on the low estimate of total expanded bycatch, it is likely the shark bottom longline fishery has minimal impact on the MPAs. If additional data becomes available, expanded take estimates could be calculated for those MPAs for which NMFS was unable to provide estimates in the current analysis. Given that only 34 out of 1,563 observed trips (2 percent) intersected all of the MPAs initially considered by the SAFMC, the impact of shark longline vessels on the snapper grouper complex in the MPAs is expected to be minimal. Taking all 34 sets that occurred in all the MPAs into account, only 28 grouper were observed caught over a 12 year period. Of these, only one species that was observed caught (snowy grouper) is from a stock that is considered overfished with overfishing occurring. Two individuals of this species were caught. A total of 1,816 sharks, or 2.6 percent of the total number of sharks observed, were observed caught on sets that intersected all of the MPAs initially considered by the SAFMC. Based on expanded catch estimates, a total of 25,395 sharks were estimated to be caught in the MPAs each year. If all the MPAs were closed to bottom longline gear, this could have a positive impact on shark populations by reducing overall mortality and landings of sharks in the South Atlantic. The total number of sharks caught annually in the MPAs is likely an overestimate because most of the catch recorded on the sets did not occur entirely within the MPA as described above. Thus the actual number of sharks caught in the MPAs may be lower. For the eight proposed MPAs (which were approved by the SAFMC in June 2007), only 21 fish (4.8 percent of total) were reported as bycatch, and of those, only 13 individuals were comprised of grouper species. No snowy grouper were observed caught in the proposed MPAs. For sharks, 818 sharks were observed caught in the proposed MPAs (1.6 percent of total) with the majority of the catch comprised of sandbar shark. The SAFMC has expressed concern about habitat impacts of shark bottom longline gear in the MPAs. In the Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS completed a review of all HMS (and other state and Federally managed gears) that may have an impact on HMS essential fish habitat (EFH). In addition, NMFS considered the impact of HMS gears on EFH for other Federally managed species. NMFS concluded that bottom longline gear was the only gear that has the potential to impact EFH, specifically benthic habitat types. However, the degree to which the gear will impact EFH also depends on the substrate that makes up the EFH. Certain substrates, such as complex coral reef habitat, will be more susceptible to damage than will mud and sand substrates because of the extended time for habitat recovery. The impact of shark bottom longline gear on benthic habitat has not been rigorously studied and conclusions are mixed. For example, the 1999 NMFS EFH Workshop categorized the impact of bottom longline gear on mud, sand, and hard-bottom as low. Bottom longline may have some negative impact if gear is set in more complex habitats, such as sponges or coral reefs, however only small portions of some of the MPAs are characterized as being comprised of hardbottom, and none of the areas are considered to have sponge or coral habitat. Bottom longline gear in the shark fishery is primarily used in sandy and/or mud habitats where it is expected to have minimal impacts. [[Page 41397]] On November 7, 2006, NMFS published a Notice of Intent (71 FR 65088) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to examine management alternatives for revising existing HMS EFH, consider additional Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs), and to identify ways to avoid or minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse fishing impacts on EFH consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other relevant Federal laws. In Amendment 1 to the Consolidated HMS FMP, NMFS will consider the impact of bottom longline gear on EFH. Depending on the outcome of the analysis, NMFS may consider alternatives to prohibit bottom longline gear if it is found to have more than a minimal and not temporary impact. Factors that NMFS will consider include the overlap of bottom longline gear with EFH, the duration and extent of the impact, and the susceptibility of the habitat to damage from bottom longline gear consistent with previous guidance issued by NMFS.The SAFMC has also expressed concerns about the enforceability of prohibiting only snapper grouper bottom longline gear and not shark bottom longline gear in the MPAs. Because the gears are virtually indistinguishable, and many fishermen hold both types of permits, prohibiting only one type of gear could create an enforcement loophole. As a result, NMFS proposes to close the MPAs to shark bottom longline gear based on enforceability concerns raised by the SAFMC. The proposed MPAs are generally small (< 10 miles wide) and vessels should be able to make minor adjustments to fishing locations to avoid the MPAs. Most of the observed shark bottom longline sets occurred shoreward of the MPAs. Assuming bycatch rates are higher in the MPAs than outside the MPAs, affected vessels may forego some loss of revenue from the reduced bycatch of grouper and other species caught on shark BLL sets in the proposed MPAs, however, these losses are expected to be minimal. Based on the expanded catch estimates, the total shark catches for the proposed MPAs were 25,395 and this equates to approximately $1,060,083 based on 2006 ex-vessel prices for shark (assuming 5 percent of the landing weight was fins and 95 percent of the landings was carcasses). Since there are approximately 285 shark LAPs in Florida, this would amount to a loss of revenue of approximately $3,722 per vessel per year in Florida if vessels are unable to catch as many sharks outside the MPAs. Given the small size of the MPAs, it is unlikely that vessels would be unable to catch as many sharks outside the MPAs. C. Reporting Under the proposed alternative, NMFS would also modify the reporting frequency for dealers. The requirement for dealer reports to be postmarked within 10 days after each reporting period (1st through 15th and 16th through last day of month), would be modified to state that dealer reports must be received by NMFS not later than 10 days after each reporting period (i.e., 25th and 10th of each month). Shark dealers would have to submit these reports in advance of the 10th and 25th of each month to ensure adequate time for delivery, depending on the means employed for report submission. Requiring that all dealer reports are actually received by NMFS in a more timely fashion would provide more frequent reports of shark landings in order to better assess quantities of sharks landed and whether or not a closure or other management measure is warranted to prevent overfishing. This could decrease the likelihood that extensive overharvests of sharks would occur. Dealers would still be required to submit reports indicating that no sharks were purchased during inactive periods. NMFS does not expect any economic impacts as a result of this management measure. Participants selected to participate in the shark research program would be subject to 100 percent observer coverage as a requirement for eligibility to participate in the program. Increasing observer coverage for vessels participating in this program would result in positive ecological impacts because observer reports could be used to monitor landings, bycatch, and interactions with protected resources in near ``real-time.'' Vessels outside the shark research program would still be required to carry a NMFS-approved observer if selected and all vessels would still be required to complete logbooks within 48 hours of fishing activity and then submit the logbooks to NMFS within seven days. D. Seasons The proposed alternative would open all shark fisheries on January 1 of each year dependant upon available quota. There would only be one season per year. Upon achieving 80 percent of landings, fishermen would be given at least 5 days notice from the date of filing with the Office of the Federal Register prior to the closure. Official notice would be made via the Federal Register, however, the public would also be informed simultaneously via the HMS website and email notice listserve. The fishery for non-sandbar LCS and sandbar sharks would both close when either quota reaches 80 percent of their respective quota because of concerns regarding sandbar shark bycatch that might occur if the non-sandbar LCS fishery were kept open after the sandbar shark quota had been filled. Closing both fisheries should also prevent individuals from mis-identifying sandbar sharks as non-sandbar LCS. Additionally, any dealer reports that note ``shark'' landings or unidentified shark landings would be counted against the sandbar shark quota. The fishery for SCS and pelagic sharks would be closed individually upon achieving 80 percent of their respective quotas. Upon achieving 80 percent of landings, fishermen would be given at least 5 days notice from the date of filing with the Office of the Federal Register prior to the closure. Official notice would be made via the Federal Register, however, the public would also be informed simultaneously via the HMS website and email notice listserve. Fishing effort might increase as a result of providing this 5-day advance notice as fishermen and dealers would know that the season is about to end, however, they would still be bound by the retention limits for individual trips. Commercial shark fisheries have been managed on a trimester basis since 2003 to provide a higher degree of resolution on which to manage seasonal fisheries, reduce fishing mortality during peak pupping seasons, and address other bycatch concerns. As described above, the proposed alternative would implement significantly reduced quotas and retention limits for sandbar shark, which is the most valuable shark in commercial fisheries because of its fin value. It is estimated that the reductions in fishing effort as a result of these reduced retention limits and quotas could provide ecological benefits to all shark species. The ecological benefits of minimizing fishing mortality during peak pupping seasons or having a higher degree of resolution on which to manage fisheries seasonally could be replaced by the fact that this alternative would implement a significant reduction in the quota for sandbar sharks and reduced retention limits for both sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS. Additionally, since all sandbar sharks and some of the non-sandbar LCS would be landed by a limited number of vessels participating in a shark research program, NMFS would have more information concerning when the [[Page 41398]] sandbar shark and non-sandbar LCS quotas would likely be reached. This may result in positive ecological impacts because it should reduce overharvests. To ensure collection of information that is needed for stock assessments, NMFS would need to ensure data collection throughout different areas (e.g., throughout the sharks' range) and also throughout the year. However, fishing effort and landings (e.g., landings by state fishermen in state waters) that would occur outside the shark research program are difficult to predict and negative ecological impacts may occur as a result of the sandbar shark or non- sandbar LCS quota being filled by vessels outside of the shark research program as this would mean that fishing under the shark research program and collection of biological samples would also cease. NMFS is seeking public input specifically in response to two questions regarding the potential ecological impacts of two variables that could affect season length. First, is the selection of 80 percent of any given species/species complex an appropriate threshold for taking action to close the fishery? Eighty percent was chosen because it is close enough to 100 percent to allow for a limited number of trips to be completed after NMFS receives landings reports from dealers and takes action to close the fishery without resulting in overharvests. Second, is providing five days notice to fishermen before the season closes for any species/species complex adequate notice for fishermen? Or, conversely, is five days notice too long and should NMFS follow the same timeline for sharks as it does for inseason actions for bluefin tuna, which is three days from date of filing? E. Regions Under the proposed alternative, NMFS would eliminate the three regions and manage all shark fisheries throughout the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Sea as one region. The ecological impacts of this change are expected to be neutral. The regions were implemented in 2004 to address regional differences in fisheries and to provide fishing opportunities for regions that do not have sharks present throughout the year. As stated above, in terms of the reduction in fishing effort that would result under the quotas and retention limits proposed in this alternative are likely to achieve, NMFS does not expect that maintaining a regional management scheme would provide any additional ecological benefits for Atlantic sharks, protected resources, or other bycatch. However, to ensure that NMFS has a variety of biological samples from different regions, NMFS would maintain adequate regional coverage when selecting vessels for the shark research program. Eliminating a regional management scheme would likely have negative economic impacts on regions that do not have sharks present year round. The North Atlantic region could be disadvantaged as a result of eliminating a regional management scheme because the quota would likely be harvested in southern regions before sharks are present in the North Atlantic. Vessels could either move to southern areas to participate in the shark fishery in areas where sharks are present year-round or redistribute fishing effort to other fisheries. Dealers in the North Atlantic region could also be affected, possibly even more so than vessels, as the likelihood of having shark products consistently available would decrease. However, given that the North Atlantic region mostly handles pelagic sharks and few LCS or SCS, any economic impacts of removing the regions for LCS and SCS are likely to be slight. F. Recreational Management Measures Finally, under the proposed alternative, recreational anglers (HMS Angling, Charter Headboat, and General Category permit holders participating in a registered HMS tournament) would only be able to possess species of shark that are easy to identify including: bonnethead, nurse, tiger, great hammerhead, smooth hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, lemon, sharpnose, shortfin mako, common thresher, oceanic whitetip, and blue sharks. These sharks are easier to identify than other shark species and are less likely to be confused with dusky or sandbar sharks. Species that were previously authorized, but would no longer be allowed to be possessed in recreational fisheries, include: sandbar, bull, blacktip, spinner, porbeagle, blacknose, and finetooth sharks. Ecological benefits of not allowing these species to be landed are variable depending upon the species. NMFS is most concerned about recreational anglers landing sandbar and dusky sharks and, therefore, wants to reduce the potential that one of these sharks could be mistakenly identified and then landed. Between 2002 and 2004, there were 5,784 sandbar sharks landed in recreational fisheries per year. Considering the stock status of sandbar sharks, the ecological impacts of further limiting the species that may be possessed in the recreational fishery would likely be positive as it would reduce the number of sandbar sharks intentionally landed and/or landed due to confusion with species that look similar. The ecological impacts of prohibiting sandbar sharks would likely be positive for dusky sharks as well as it would reduce the number of dusky sharks that are landed because they can be mistaken for sandbar sharks. Silky sharks are easily confused with dusky sharks, therefore, prohibiting the retention of silky sharks could result in fewer dusky sharks being landed. Despite the fact that this alternative could result in positive ecological impacts, it is not expected to eliminate sandbar mortality in the recreational fisheries as there would likely continue to be some illegal landings of sandbar sharks and/or some level of post-release mortality for fish that are caught and released. NMFS will engage in outreach efforts to provide recreational anglers with updated regulations and tips for proper identification of shark species that are authorized to be possessed in order to improve compliance with these measures. Participants in recreational shark fisheries could experience negative economic impacts as a result of reducing the number of sharks that can be legally landed. Charter/headboat (CHB) operators would be most affected as a result of these measures as they may see a reduction in the number of charters that customers are willing to hire. These impacts may be most pronounced in areas where blacktip sharks are frequently encountered, including the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions. Recreational landings data indicates that there are more landings of blacktip sharks than of any other species that could no longer be possessed as a result of this alternative. It is presumed that blacktip sharks are retained more than any other LCS because of the higher quality of their flesh and the fact that they are more abundant than other LCS in coastal waters. CHB operators specializing in sharks may see the number of charters decline because some fishermen insist on keeping blacktip or sandbar sharks. Prohibiting the other species (finetooth, silky, bull, blacknose, and porbeagle) is not expected to have adverse impacts as these species are not as frequently encountered in recreational shark fisheries. Tournaments offering prize categories for sharks may also experience negative economic impacts as a result of prohibiting six additional species of sharks for retention in recreational fisheries. The majority of tournaments specializing in sharks are in the North [[Page 41399]] Atlantic region, specifically Rhode Island, New York, and Massachusetts. In 2005 and 2006, there were 60 tournaments per year with prize categories for pelagic sharks. Species most commonly targeted in these tournaments including common thresher, oceanic whitetip, blue, shortfin mako, and porbeagle. Of these, only porbeagle would be prohibited from retention as stocks are overfished. Tournaments are generally won by shortfin mako or common thresher, therefore, significant economic impacts as a result of prohibiting porbeagle retention in shark fishing tournaments are not anticipated. NMFS is requesting public comment specifically on the list of species that can be easily identified. Specifically, do commenters agree that the species proposed are easy to identify? Are there other species that should be added to the list? Are there some species that should be removed from the list? G. Impacts on Protected Resources and EFH The proposed alternative could have positive impacts on protected resources, including sea turtles, marine mammals, and smalltooth sawfish as it is expected to reduce overall fishing effort targeting shark with gillnet and bottom longline gear while increasing the level of observer coverage on a limited number of vessels participating in a shark research program. The shark research program proposed in this alternative may also provide additional documentation of interactions with protected resources via observer reports and possibly the opportunity to collect samples from protected resources. Shark fishermen outside of the shark research program would likely reduce the number, duration, and frequency of trips targeting sharks with bottom longline and/or gillnet gear. Furthermore, soak time might also be reduced because fishermen would know that they would only be allowed to possess 22 non-sandbar LCS per vessel per trip. Fishing effort will decrease the most in the bottom longline fishery as this gear is most effective for targeting sandbar shark and most LCS species. Fishing effort in the gillnet fishery would likely decrease less than fishing effort in the BLL fishery as this fishery mainly targets small coastal sharks and non-sandbar LCS, specifically blacktip sharks. There is the possibility that some of the current fishing effort in the BLL fishery would transfer to the gillnet fishery to target species that have larger retention limits (i.e., SCS and blacktip sharks) or to other BLL fisheries. It is difficult to predict how fishing effort in longline and gillnet fisheries would change as a result of this alternative. Ecological impacts to EFH would likely be positive as a result of alternative 4. BLL gear is generally regarded as the HMS gear type most likely to potentially impact EFH of HMS and/or non-HMS. BLL gear may have some negative impact if gear is set in more complex habitats, such as hardbottom or coral reefs in the Caribbean or areas with gorgonians, or soft corals and sponges in the Gulf of Mexico. BLL gear set with cable groundline or heavy monofilament with weights can damage hard or soft corals and potentially become entangled in coral reefs upon retrieval, resulting in coral breakage due to line entanglement. However, the extent to which bottom longline gear is fished in areas with coral reef habitat targeting sharks has not been determined. H. Conclusion Overall, alternative 4 is preferred and therefor proposed because it implements quotas and retention limits necessary to allow rebuilding and prevent overfishing of shark species and maximizes scientific data acquisition by continuing a limited research fishery for sandbar shark with 100 percent observer coverage. Furthermore, by allowing some vessels to participate in the shark research fishery annually, this alternative mitigates some of the significant economic impacts (e.g., reduced retention limits) that are included in this alternative and alternatives 2, 3, and 5 and that are necessary to reduce fishing mortality and effort and rebuild overfished shark stocks. This alternative ensures that data for stock assessments and life history samples continue to be collected while allowing a small pool of individuals to continue to collect revenues from sharks. Individuals not selected to participate in the shark research program could still land 22 non-sandbar LCS per vessel per trip, which would limit the number of trips targeting non-sandbar LCS sharks, while allowing them to keep some sharks that would otherwise be discarded. Analyses of the Other Alternatives Considered Under the no action alternative (alternative 1), NMFS would maintain the current regulations including, but not limited to, a commercial quota of 1,017 mt dw for the LCS complex; 19 prohibited species; the mid-Atlantic shark closed area; a 4,000 lb retention limit per trip for all LCS; trimester seasons; three regions; and a recreational retention limit that allows recreational anglers to possess the same species as commercial fishermen. Overall, given the latest stock assessments that recommend large reductions in fishing mortality, the no action alternative would have negative ecological impacts on sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks. In the short-term, the social and economic impacts would likely be neutral or slightly positive because current fishing effort would remain the same. In the long-term, if these species do not rebuild, social and economic impacts would likely be negative as the shark species, particularly the sandbar shark which is the major species for the fishery, become less abundant. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, management measures are needed to rebuild overfished stocks and prevent overfishing. Therefore, maintaining the LCS quota of 1,017 mt dw, would be inconsistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the recent LCS stock assessment that recommended a TAC of 158 mt dw for sandbar sharks in order for this species to rebuild by 2070. Because the current fishing effort under this alternative could lead to continued overfishing of sandbar, porbeagle, and dusky sharks, at a level that could potentially prevent these species from rebuilding in the recommended timeframe, NMFS does not propose this alternative. In addition to the no action alternative (alternative 1) and the proposed alternative (alternative 4), NMFS also considered alternatives 2 and 3, which would establish the same quotas, time/area closures, seasons, regions, and recreational retention limits as the proposed alternative while changing the commercial retention limits based on the permit holders allowed under each alternative. Alternative 2 would allow only those fishermen who hold a directed shark LAP to possess sharks. Those fishermen could possess 8 sandbar sharks and 21 non- sandbar LCS per trip. Additionally, under alternative 2, dealers would be required to report sharks received within 24 hours of the sale. Under alternative 3, fishermen who hold either a directed or incidental shark LAP could possess 4 sandbar sharks and 10 non-sandbar LCS per trip. Both alternatives 2 and 3 could have positive ecological impacts for most species of sharks, bycatch, and protected resources as a result of significantly reduced retention limits and quotas for sandbar sharks and reduced retention limits for non-sandbar LCS. These positive ecological impacts would likely be more pronounced in [[Page 41400]] alternative 3 than alternative 2 because retention limits are reduced. Both alternatives would reduce directed fishing effort for sharks significantly, as the limited retention limits for sandbar shark or non-sandbar LCS would not correspond to revenues that would equal a fishermen's costs for a trip targeting sharks. Sandbar sharks are the most lucrative species of LCS and currently they comprise 70 percent of landings in the bottom longline fishery. Under alternative 2, because the shark fishery for incidental permit holders would be closed, sharks caught in pursuit of other species with bottom longline gear or gillnet would be discarded, possibly dead. Compared to alternative 2, alternative 3 would expand the universe of commercial shark permit holders that could possess a limited number of sharks and non-sandbar LCS to include incidental permit holders. However, reduced retention limits would more closely resemble a shark fishery that is exclusively incidental in nature, as the retention limits described in this alternative would not correspond to revenues that would equal a fishermen's costs for a trip. It is still anticipated that sharks caught in excess of the retention limit while in pursuit of other species with bottom longline gear or gillnet would be discarded, possibly dead. Furthermore, alternative 3 would set a retention limit for sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS that is the same for both directed and incidental permit holders, which would reduce the value of a directed shark permit. As in the proposed alternative, eliminating regions and seasons in these alternatives represents an economic disadvantage to the North Atlantic region as sharks are not present in these waters year-round, meaning the quota may be filled in some years before sharks are present in these areas. However, as fishermen in the North Atlantic region land more pelagic sharks than LCS or SCS, NMFS does not expect eliminating regions and seasons to have a significant economic impact on the North Atlantic region. Interactions with protected resources may decrease under both alternatives as a result of less bottom longline and gillnet fishing effort targeting sharks; however, it is assumed that some of this fishing effort would be displaced to other gillnet and bottom longline fisheries in which participants are permitted. Alternative 2 is not proposed because landings of all sharks by incidental permit holders would have to be discarded and because it would place significant reporting burden on shark dealers. Additionally, alternative 2 does not provide as much assurance that overfishing of sandbar and dusky sharks would not continue compared to other alternatives because of increased retention limits for non- sandbar LCS and the increased likelihood that sandbars and dusky sharks would be caught incidentally and discarded dead. Thus, this alternative would not achieve National Standard 1 to rebuild overfished species or prevent overfishing (e.g., sandbar and dusky sharks) nor would this alternative achieve National Standard 9, to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable. Alternative 3 is not proposed because it diminishes the economic and historical significance of the directed fishery and essentially makes the directed shark LAP equal in value to the incidental shark fishing permit. Furthermore, given the reduced retention limits in this alternative, the directed shark fishery would essentially be eliminated, resulting in significant economic impacts. As with alternative 2, this alternative would not achieve National Standard 1 to rebuild overfished species or prevent overfishing (e.g., sandbar and dusky sharks) nor would this alternative achieve National Standard 9, to minimize bycatch to the extent practicable. Additionally, the limited data attained on shark interactions from both alternatives 2 and 3 would compromise the ability to maintain fishery dependent data series for conducting stock assessments, which are necessary in order to have the best scientific data (National Standard 2). Preferred alternative 4, the proposed alternative, would likely accomplish the necessary reductions in quota, retention limits, and fishing effort to prevent overfishing and allow stocks to rebuild while allowing for the collection of valuable scientific data, allowing the continuation of a very limited but directed shark fishery, allowing some landings of non- sandbar LCS, and minimizing bycatch to the extent practicable. The last alternative considered (alternative 5) would close all Atlantic shark fisheries. Under this alternative, NMFS would preclude commercial and recreational fishermen from possessing or landing any shark species. This alternative would have the most significant positive ecological impacts for sharks, protected resources, and EFH of the alternatives considered in this rulemaking. However, closing the Atlantic shark fishery would also incur the most significant economic impacts on U.S. shark fishermen, shark dealers, shark tournament operators, and others involved in supporting industries. This alternative is not proposed at this time because it would cause severe economic and social impacts to fishing communities along the east coast and Gulf of Mexico compared to the other alternatives considered, contrary to National Standard 8 (which requires consideration of economic and social data to minimize adverse economic impacts on communities, to the extent practicable). Furthermore, by closing the shark fishery, NMFS would lose a valuable source of fishery dependent data that would influence the ability to conduct future shark stock assessments. Recent stock assessments for sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks indicate that these species are overfished. The primary objective of this amendment is to reduce fishing mortality for these species and allow them the opportunity to rebuild. There are numerous species of shark that are not overfished or experiencing overfishing, and therefore, do not warrant a full closure of the Atlantic shark fishery at this time. Preferred alternative 4, the proposed alternative, would strike a balance between preventing overfishing and allowing stocks to rebuild, while considering the economic needs of the shark fishing community and the data needs of future stock assessments by allowing some retention of sharks. Request for Comments NMFS is requesting comments on any of the alternatives or analyses described in this proposed rule and in the draft Amendment 2. NMFS is also requesting comments on specific items related to those alternatives to clarify certain sections of the regulatory text or in analyzing potential impacts of the alternatives. Specifically, NMFS requests co