Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Recreational Atlantic Blue and White Marlin Landings Limit; Amendments to the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and the Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Billfish, 48804-48838 [05-15965]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 160 (Friday, August 19, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48804-48838]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15965]



[[Page 48803]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Commerce





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Parts 300, 600, and 635



Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Recreational Atlantic Blue and White 
Marlin Landings Limit; Amendments to the Fishery Management Plan for 
Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and the Fishery Management Plan 
for Atlantic Billfish; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 160 / Friday, August 19, 2005 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 48804]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 300, 600, and 635

[Docket No. 050805217-5217-01; I.D. 051603C]
RIN 0648-AQ65


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

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

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karyl Brewster-Geisz, Margo Schulze-
Haugen, or Heather Stirratt at 301-713-2347 or fax 301-713-1917; Russ 
Dunn at 727-824-5399 or fax 727-824-5398; or Mark Murray-Brown at 978-
281-9260 or fax 978-281-9340.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    The Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the dual authority of 
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) and the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). The FMP for 
Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks, finalized in 1999, and the FMP 
for Atlantic Billfish, finalized in 1988, are implemented by 
regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
    Since the 1999 final rule (May 28, 1999; 64 FR 29090) that 
consolidated Atlantic HMS regulations and implemented the 1999 Atlantic 
Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP and Amendment 1 to the Atlantic 
Billfish FMP, a number of management issues have arisen that require 
further reconsideration or action. Many of these actions are linked to 
each other and are best analyzed in conjunction with other actions. 
This proposed rule and draft HMS FMP cover many of these issues and 
topics including: minimizing bycatch or bycatch mortality, rebuilding 
overfished fisheries, and modifying existing management strategies. 
Some of the alternatives proposed relate to regulations under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act or the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Other 
proposed actions would improve the clarity and effectiveness of 
existing regulations or the process to be followed when taking action, 
consistent with the FMPs. Some of the actions proposed in this rule 
would amend the FMP while other actions would adjust the management 
measures without amending the FMP. The need for each action is 
described later in this document with the analyses of each alternative.
    NMFS announced its intent to conduct an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) amending the two current fishery management plans on 
July 9, 2003 (68 FR 40907). On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23730), NMFS 
announced the availability of an Issues and Options Paper and nine 
scoping meetings. On May 26, 2004 (69 FR 29927), NMFS extended the 
comment period on the Issues and Options Paper, and announced an 
additional scoping meeting. During this time, NMFS also presented the 
Issues and Options Paper to the New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Gulf of 
Mexico Fishery Management Councils and the Atlantic States Marine 
Fisheries Commission. A summary of the major comments received during 
scoping was released in December 2004 and is available on the HMS 
Management Division website or by requesting a hard copy (see 
ADDRESSES). During scoping, NMFS referred to this project as Amendment 
2 to the existing FMPs. Starting with the Predraft stage, NMFS has 
referred to this project as the draft HMS FMP.
    In February 2005, NMFS released the combined Predraft to the 
Consolidated HMS FMP and annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation 
(SAFE) Report. NMFS presented the Predraft document to all five 
Atlantic Fishery Management Councils, both the Atlantic and Gulf of 
Mexico States Marine Fisheries Commissions, and to

[[Page 48805]]

the HMS and Billfish Advisory Panels. Comments received on both the 
Issues and Options Paper and the Predraft were considered when drafting 
and analyzing the ecological, economic, and social impacts of the 
alternatives in the proposed rule. A summary of the comments received 
on the Predraft was released in June 2005 and is available on the HMS 
Management Division website or by requesting a hard copy (see 
ADDRESSES).
    This proposed rule and the accompanying draft HMS FMP are the 
culmination of the analyses of the comments received on the Issues and 
Options paper and the Predraft document. In addition, the draft HMS FMP 
continues the process to conduct a five-year review of essential fish 
habitat (EFH) consistent with the EFH guidelines (the process started 
with the release of the Issues and Options Paper in April 2004). At 
this time, NMFS is reviewing the information available for all HMS, 
including billfish, and will determine which species need updates to 
their EFH identifications. Any updates or resulting changes in 
management will be done in a future rulemaking.
    As described below, NMFS is also taking additional actions in this 
proposed rule: (1) a formal withdrawal of the 2003 proposed rule to 
implement the ICCAT 250 fish limit (September 17, 2003; 68 FR 54410) 
and (2) a formal decision not to include in the draft HMS FMP the 
exemption to the ``no sale'' provision for the artisanal handline 
fishery in Puerto Rico as outlined in the 1988 Billfish FMP. NMFS has 
also reviewed a petition for rulemaking from Blue Ocean Institute et 
al. that requested NMFS look at a particular BFT spawning area in the 
Gulf of Mexico (copies of the petition can be requested, see 
ADDRESSES). An additional consideration was a settlement agreement 
related to white marlin that is awaiting court approval in the Center 
for Biological Diversity v. NMFS, Civ. Action No. 04-0063(D.D.C). The 
petition and settlement agreement are discussed further in the Time/
Area Closures section below.

Consolidation of FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and FMP 
for Atlantic Billfish

    Currently, management of Atlantic HMS is accomplished through two 
different FMPs: the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and 
the FMP for Atlantic Billfish. The 1999 decision to maintain two 
different FMPs was based on the idea that the billfish fishery is 
recreational only while the tuna, swordfish, and shark fisheries are 
both commercial and recreational. Despite this decision, the 
regulations for both of these FMPs were consolidated under 50 CFR part 
635 in 1999.
    Since that decision, NMFS has further recognized the interrelated 
nature of these fisheries and the need to consider management actions 
collectively. For example, anglers fishing for Atlantic tunas, 
swordfish, sharks, or billfish must obtain an HMS Angling permit and 
must follow the recreational bag and size limits for all these species. 
Additionally, any management measures enacted for billfish recreational 
fishermen will likely have impacts on recreational fishermen for other 
HMS and vice versa. Thus, in the draft HMS FMP related to this rule, 
NMFS consolidates the two FMPs into one FMP, the consolidated Atlantic 
HMS FMP.
    Consolidating the FMPs will allow NMFS to take a more ecosystem-
based approach to these fisheries whose recreational fishermen often 
fish for tunas, swordfish, sharks, and billfish on the same trip and 
are required to have the same permit, and whose commercial fishermen 
catch billfish as bycatch while targeting other HMS. NMFS does not 
expect the consolidation of the FMPs to have an impact on the existing 
regulations because the regulations have been combined since 1999. NMFS 
also does not expect any impact on the priorities of the agency or on 
the composition of the Advisory Panels as a result of the 
consolidation.
    Unless specifically proposed in this rule or in the HMS FMP, the 
draft HMS FMP, in itself, would not change existing provisions of 
either the 1999 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Shark FMP (and its 2003 
amendment), the 1988 Billfish FMP (and its 1999 amendment), or any 
implementing regulations. However, the 1988 FMP for Atlantic Billfish 
contained a prohibition on the sale or purchase of Atlantic billfish, 
and simultaneously included a limited exemption from the ``no sale'' 
provision to accommodate a small-scale artisanal fishery in Puerto Rico 
that occasionally landed blue marlin. The exemption to the ``no sale'' 
provision was subject to a number of conditions and restrictions, 
including: only billfish caught on handlines having fewer than six 
hooks could be retained for sale; vessels retaining billfish for sale 
could not have a rod and reel onboard; billfish could be sold only in 
Puerto Rico; a maximum of 100 billfish per year could be landed and 
sold; if more than 100 billfish per year were landed under the 
exemption, the Councils would consider removing the exemption; all 
existing fishermen wishing to sell billfish would be required to obtain 
a permit; the Caribbean Fishery Management Council, in cooperation with 
the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, would develop and 
implement a system for tracking billfish landings under the exemption; 
and the exemption would not be in effect until the permitting and 
tracking systems were operative, pending approval by the five involved 
Councils at that time.
    The exemption from the ``no sale'' provision for the Puerto Rican 
artisanal handline fishery has never been implemented because the 
aforementioned conditions have not been met, either prior to or 
following transfer of the FMP to Secretarial authority. NMFS is 
proposing not to carry forward the exemption to the no sale provision 
for the Puerto Rican artisanal handline fishery into the draft HMS FMP 
based on the overfished status of Atlantic billfishes, non-fulfillment 
of the conditions necessary to implement the exemption to the no sale 
provision and resultant non-implementation of the provision over a 
period of 18 years, public comment, and the support of the involved 
fishery management councils (specifically the Caribbean Council, which 
would be most directly impacted by the potential elimination of the 
exemption provision).

Analyses of Alternatives

    The following is a summary of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIS 
for the HMS FMP. These elements are arranged in the following sections: 
Bycatch Reduction, Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing, Management 
Program Structure, and EFH Update.

1. Bycatch Reduction

    Under National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is 
required, to the extent practicable, to minimize bycatch and, to the 
extent that bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize bycatch mortality. In 
this proposed rule, NMFS examined two strategies specifically aimed at 
reducing bycatch and bycatch mortality: conducting workshops to teach 
handling/release techniques and species identification, and examining 
the effectiveness of time/area closures in reducing bycatch. As 
described below, other sections (e.g., Section 2 regarding finetooth 
sharks) in this proposed rule also consider the requirement to minimize 
bycatch and bycatch mortality. Detailed analyses of bycatch reduction 
alternatives are presented in the draft HMS FMP. Only a summary of the 
major points addressing workshops and time/area closures are described 
below.

[[Page 48806]]

A. Workshops
    NMFS is proposing at 50 CFR 635.8 two types of workshops for 
participants in HMS fisheries. The first type would instruct 
participants in the safe handling, release, and identification of 
protected resources. The second type would instruct participants in the 
correct identification of HMS, particularly Atlantic sharks. The 
alternatives for and discussion of these workshops is provided below. 
Regardless of the requirements, any fishermen, dealer, or interested 
party would be welcome to attend any or all protected species or HMS 
identification workshops.
i. Protected Species Workshops
    On October 29, 2003, a Biological Opinion (BiOp) was issued in 
conjunction with Atlantic shark fishery management measures implemented 
in a final rule for Amendment 1 to the 1999 HMS FMP (December 24, 2003; 
68 FR 74746). Among other requirements, the 2003 BiOp included a 
requirement for workshops or other training programs to disseminate 
information regarding protocols and equipment for safe release and 
disentanglement of protected species, including information specific to 
smalltooth sawfish and sea turtles. The 2003 BiOp specifically required 
that the workshops concentrate on ways to reduce the potential for 
serious injury or mortality should incidental capture via hooking or 
entanglement occur.
    On June 1, 2004, a BiOp for the HMS pelagic longline fishery 
concluded that the continued operation of the pelagic longline fishery 
is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of leatherback sea 
turtles. In order to achieve the target post-release mortality rates 
for sea turtles specified in the 2004 BiOp, it is imperative that NMFS 
ensure all participants are aware of, and are proficient with, the safe 
release and disentanglement gears and protocols outlined in the BiOp. 
Mandatory workshops that would provide this type of training for vessel 
operators are required in the 2004 BiOp.
    In addition to addressing safe handling and disentanglement 
protocols, the workshops in this proposed rule would also disseminate 
information specific to the identification of protected resources 
commonly encountered during longline and gillnet fishing activities. 
Providing fishermen with the skills necessary to properly identify 
protected resources that are encountered during fishing activities 
would increase the likelihood that they employ the proper release and 
disentanglement protocols, improve the accuracy of logbook data and 
extrapolated take estimates, and assist fishermen in complying with the 
reporting regulations in 50 CFR part 635.
    The preferred alternatives for the protected resources workshops 
would implement one-day mandatory workshops and certification for HMS 
pelagic and bottom longline and shark gillnet vessel owners and 
operators by January 1, 2007. Mandatory vessel owner attendance would 
provide a link to vessel permit issuance and renewal ensuring that 
workshops are well attended and ensuring that vessel owners, if they 
are not the vessel operators, know what should be happening on their 
vessels. Shark and directed or incidental swordfish limited access 
permits would not be renewed without a copy of the certificate if 
logbooks indicate that longline or gillnet gear were used on at least 
one trip for that vessel in the preceding year or, in the case of 
vessels that were transferred in the preceding year, since the 
transfer. Mandatory operator attendance ensures that there is at least 
one person on board the vessel during fishing activities that is adept 
at the safe handling and release protocols and protected resource 
identification. Additionally, all owners and operators that attended 
and successfully completed industry certification workshops (held on 
April 8, 2005, in Orlando, Florida, and on June 27, 2005, in New 
Orleans, Louisiana), as documented by the workshop facilitators, are 
proposed to receive automatically valid protected species workshop 
certificates prior to the effective date of January 1, 2007. These 
workshops were attended by NMFS personnel, sponsored by industry 
representatives with experience in sea turtle handling and release 
protocols and fishing gear, and well-attended by pelagic longline 
fishermen.
    The preferred one-day workshops are not expected to result in 
excessive economic impacts, as they will be scheduled at numerous 
locales along the Atlantic coast, including the Gulf of Mexico and 
Caribbean, minimizing travel and lost fishing time. Requiring HMS 
longline and shark gillnet owners and operators to attain 
recertification every three years would balance the ecological benefits 
of maintaining familiarity with the protocols and the economic impacts 
of travel costs and lost fishing opportunities due to workshop 
attendance.
    NMFS considered a range of alternatives for these protected species 
workshops including voluntary workshops (no action). NMFS felt that 
voluntary workshops could limit the dissemination of the safe release, 
disentanglement, and protected resources identification information, 
and, therefore, would not guarantee compliance with the BiOps.
    NMFS also considered mandatory workshops for the owners, operators, 
and the crew of all HMS longline vessels. This alternative would 
require the greatest number of participants to become skilled in the 
release protocols and protected resource identification. This 
alternative was not preferred due to the level of economic impacts to 
the longline fishery and the transient nature of vessel crew members. 
Under the preferred alternatives, because operators would be required 
to attend the workshops, the operators would be responsible for 
ensuring that the appropriate crew members were proficient at the 
release techniques and protected resource identification.
    In addition to the three-year mandatory recertification for the 
protected species workshops, NMFS also considered mandatory 
recertification every two or five years. Recertification every two 
years may yield the most positive ecological impacts, however, this 
alternative would also have the greatest economic costs to the 
industry. Recertification every five years may allow a more extensive 
period of time to lapse between certification workshops than necessary 
to maintain proficiency and provide fishermen with updates on research 
and development of handling and dehooking protocols.
ii. HMS Identification Workshops
    The second type of workshops would aim to improve HMS 
identification skills. NMFS considered these workshops due in part to 
comments received from the HMS Advisory Panel and members of the 
general public stating the need for improved identification skills of 
participants in HMS fisheries, especially shark dealers. The preferred 
alternatives would require anyone federally permitted to receive, 
trade, purchase, or barter sharks from a vessel (shark dealers), or a 
suitable proxy, to attend an HMS identification workshop for 
certification before January 1, 2007. If a dealer opts to send a proxy, 
the dealer must designate a proxy from each place of business covered 
by the dealer's permit. The proxy would need to be a person who is 
employed by a place of business covered by the dealer's permit; is a 
primary participant in identification, weighing, or first receipt of 
fish as they are offloaded from a vessel; and is involved in filling 
out dealer reports.

[[Page 48807]]

The permitted shark dealer or proxy would need to renew the 
certification every three years. Shark identification is challenging 
for dealers because they encounter many different shark species lacking 
fins and head (sharks that are dressed are often called ``logs''). 
Dealers are required to enter species data into dealer reports based on 
their purchase of fish from numerous fishermen. These reports are used 
for stock assessments and quota monitoring. Thus, incorrect species 
data could have ecological impacts and, in the long-term, could impact 
the accuracy of stock assessments. Economic and social impacts on the 
shark dealers would be minimized by offering workshops at several 
locations per region, near commercial and recreational HMS fishing 
ports during non-peak fishing times.
    NMFS considered a range of alternatives for these identification 
workshops including voluntary HMS identification workshops for dealers, 
recreational fishermen, and all commercial vessel owners and operators 
(no action). From previous voluntary workshops on other topics, NMFS 
has found that voluntary workshops are generally not well attended and 
therefore are often not an efficient use of resources.
    NMFS also considered mandatory identification workshops for all HMS 
dealers. However, requiring all HMS dealers to attend may be 
inappropriate as swordfish and tuna dealer permit holders generally 
only see a relatively limited number of HMS species and are not faced 
with the same identification difficulties as the shark dealers. NMFS 
felt that other alternatives, such as mandatory workshops for 
commercial longline owners and/or operators, are a lower priority 
because these individuals observe the fish intact, thereby facilitating 
a positive species-specific identification. While these fishermen may 
need workshops in the future, in this proposed rule and draft HMS FMP, 
NMFS felt requiring shark dealers, whose data are used for both quota 
monitoring and stock assessments and who must identify more numerous 
and difficult species, was a higher priority at this time. Generally, 
logbook data is used for stock assessment purposes and to verify dealer 
reports, not quota monitoring. Alternatives to expand participation to 
include owners and/or operators in the charter headboat, general 
category, and handgear/harpoon fisheries could result in extensive 
negative economic impacts due to travel and lost fishing time as it 
would involve a much larger portion of the fishery. Mandatory workshops 
for all HMS Angling permit holders would result in the most extensive 
negative economic impacts as it would affect the largest single group 
of permit holders.
    NMFS also considered recertification every two, three, and five 
years. Recertification every two years has a greater economic impact to 
the dealers and a slightly positive impact on species identification. 
Since the identification of the species is not likely to change in the 
two years (species names do occasionally change as scientific 
information improves) and the dealers are interacting with the species 
on a regular basis, the certification renewal could take place with 
less frequency. Decreasing the frequency of renewal to every five years 
could introduce greater error in the species identification if the 
dealer begins to confuse similar species. Requiring the shark dealers 
to attain recertification every three years would balance the 
ecological benefits of maintaining the ability to properly identify the 
sharks and the economic impacts of workshop attendance due to travel 
costs and lost fishing opportunities.
B. Time/Area Closures
    Time/area closures were first implemented for Atlantic HMS 
beginning in 1999 in order to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality 
while minimizing the reduction in target catch. As described in the 
draft HMS FMP, these closures have proven to be effective at reducing 
bycatch. Nonetheless, several HMS such as blue and white marlin and 
bluefin tuna are overfished with overfishing still occurring, and 
protected species such as leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles 
continue to interact with HMS gears. As a result, NMFS considered a 
range of alternatives to implement additional closures and/or modify 
existing closures, as necessary. As reflected in the HMS FMP, NMFS 
conducted extensive analyses regarding the impact of closures on all 
bycatch, particularly white and blue marlin, sea turtles, and bluefin 
tuna, in developing alternatives and selecting preferred alternatives. 
Also, as noted earlier, the analyses took into account the BFT spawning 
ground petition and the white marlin settlement agreement. NMFS is 
proposing to implement two alternatives that would: (1) complement the 
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's (GMFMC) time/area closures 
regarding Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closed areas and (2) 
establish criteria to be considered when contemplating regulatory 
framework adjustments to implement new time/area closures or make 
modifications to existing time/area closures.
    The first preferred alternative would implement HMS management 
measures in the Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lumps closed areas, 
consistent with a September 2003 GMFMC request to NMFS. The proposed 
rule would prohibit all HMS fishing from November through April in the 
Madison-Swanson and Steamboat Lump closures, and allow recreational 
surface trolling only from May through October. If implemented, the HMS 
management measures would expire on June 16, 2010, consistent with 
GMFMC recommendations. Both of these closures are located just 
shoreward of the current DeSoto Canyon Closed Area for pelagic longline 
fishing in HMS fisheries.
    These closed areas were implemented in 2000 by the GMFMC in order 
to provide protection for spawning aggregations of gag grouper. The 
GMFMC requested NMFS to close the areas to HMS fishing to eliminate a 
loophole and to allow the GMFMC a better opportunity to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the closed area as a fishery management tool. Other 
species, including various groupers, snappers, and porgies could 
benefit by the closures. Any impacts on HMS species and HMS fishermen 
and communities are expected to be minimal. Only three HMS commercial 
trips were reported in the closed areas from 1997 to 2003. 
Additionally, recreational and charter/headboat fishing trips for HMS 
in the closed areas are not likely to be significantly curtailed due to 
the allowance for surface trolling from May through October, which are 
the prime fishing months.
    The second preferred alternative would establish criteria at 50 CFR 
635.34(d) to be considered when implementing new time/area closures or 
making modifications to existing time/area closures. These criteria 
would provide a more definitive process for the establishment or 
modification of time/area closures while allowing for greater 
transparency and predictability in the decision-making process. 
Criteria that would be considered may include the following: any ESA-
related issues, concerns, or requirements, including applicable 
Biological Opinions; bycatch rates of protected species, prohibited 
HMS, or non-target species both within the specified or potential 
closure area(s) and throughout the fishery; bycatch rates and post-
release mortality rates of bycatch species associated with different 
gear types; new or updated landings information, bycatch, and fishing 
effort data; applicable research;

[[Page 48808]]

social and economic impacts; and the practicability of implementing new 
or modified closures, including consistency with the FMP, Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If the species is an ICCAT-
managed species, NMFS would need to determine the overall effect of the 
United States' catch of that species before implementing time/area 
closures. In these cases, other factors that NMFS would consider before 
implementing time/area closures include gear types and the location of 
and timing of a closed area. NMFS would attempt to balance ecological 
benefits with economic and social impacts. NMFS would also consider 
alternatives to closed areas, such as reducing quota(s), mandatory gear 
modifications, or alternative fishing practices such as designated 
fishing days. Thus, before the implementation of a time/area closure, 
NMFS would determine that such a closure would be the best option for a 
given set of management goals, consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-
Stevens Act, and applicable laws.
    Besides implementing new time/area closures, NMFS may also consider 
modifying existing closed areas using these same criteria. The current 
time/area closures were implemented to meet specific management 
objectives relevant at that time and were intended to be reviewed and 
modified as appropriate, over time as those objectives were met or 
other management issues arose. Specifically, NMFS intended to modify 
existing closures, as necessary, to allow utilization of a given 
fishery once the objectives of the time/area closures had been met. 
Additionally, modifications may be needed if data showed the desired 
impact was not being met or oceanographic conditions changed. 
Additionally, because fisheries, fishing gear, fishing practices, and 
stock status change over time, occasionally NMFS must examine the 
continued need for existing time/area closures. One method of doing 
this would be for NMFS to conduct, fund, or support research, such as 
testing methods for reducing bycatch of protected, prohibited, and non-
target species. Such research would need to be part of a scientifically 
justified research plan, identifying the rationale, objectives, 
methodology, and experimental design of the research, and it would be 
limited in scope and magnitude in terms of ecological and socio-
economic impacts. Research in both open and closed areas may be 
warranted to collect data on the spatial and temporal relationship 
between target and bycatch species and to provide data for use in 
considering the criteria listed above. Such research could be 
cooperative in nature to include different stakeholders in the research 
process.
    Ultimately, the criteria above are aimed to develop smaller, more 
focused time/area closures that maximize bycatch reduction while 
minimizing reductions in catch of target species. The criteria 
themselves would not be expected to have any ecological, economic, or 
social impacts. Rather, the appropriate use of the criteria would be 
expected to have overall positive ecological impacts; NMFS would 
minimize, to the extent practicable, economic and social impacts.
    As a clarification, the primary goals of time/area closures are to 
maximize the reduction of bycatch of non-target and protected species 
while minimizing the reduction in the catch of target species and 
minimizing the social and economic impacts. However, closures are not 
the only means of addressing bycatch, and in some cases, may increase 
bycatch (see analyses in the HMS FMP of many of the time/area closure 
alternatives). Bycatch in and of itself would not necessitate 
implementation of a time/area closure but could if the HMS stock was 
either overfished and/or experiencing overfishing; the bycatch is a 
prohibited, threatened, or an endangered species; and no other option 
exists to reduce interactions in the time period required. In such 
cases, time/area closures could be part of a rebuilding plan for 
overfished species and/or serve as a method for decreasing interactions 
with protected species.
    Besides the two preferred alternatives described above, NMFS 
considered a number of additional alternatives including: (1) 
Maintaining the existing time/area closures (no action alternative); 
(2) prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear in HMS fisheries in 
the central portion of the Gulf of Mexico from May through November; 
(3) prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear in HMS fisheries in 
the Northeast during the month of June; (4) prohibiting the use of 
pelagic longline gear in HMS fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico from April 
through June; (5) prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear in HMS 
fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico west of 86[deg] W. Long. year-round; 
(6) prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear in HMS fisheries in an 
area of the Northeast to reduce sea turtle interactions; (7) modifying 
the existing Charleston Bump time/area closure to allow the use of 
pelagic longline gear in all areas seaward of the axis of the Gulf 
Stream; (8) modifying the existing Northeastern U.S. time/area closure 
to allow the use of pelagic longline gear in areas west of 72[deg]47' 
W. Long. during the month of June; (9) prohibiting the use of bottom 
longline gear in an area off the Florida Keys to protect endangered 
smalltooth sawfish; and (10) prohibiting the use of pelagic longline 
gear in HMS fisheries in all areas. All of the alternatives above could 
be implemented alone or in combination with any of the other 
alternatives. In the draft HMS FMP, NMFS describes the impacts of some 
of the most likely combinations of alternatives.
    The no action alternative has been effective at reducing bycatch 
and bycatch mortality in HMS fisheries. However, maintaining the 
existing closures would not protect spawning areas of gag grouper, per 
the GMFMC request. The various alternatives to close portions of the 
Gulf of Mexico or mid-Atlantic could have some ecological benefit for 
some target and non-target species and protected species and negative 
ecological impacts for other species. Detailed analyses of each 
alternative are provided in the HMS FMP. As reflected in those 
analyses, NMFS did not find any closure or group of closures that would 
have positive ecological benefits for all species examined, 
particularly marlin, sea turtles, and BFT. Even when combining the 
alternatives, the ecological benefits for some species were minimal at 
best with increases in discards of other species. Additionally, the 
economic and social impacts of the additional closures considered could 
be substantial. Thus, NMFS is not preferring any new closures at this 
time, but may consider these closures again in the future if additional 
protections for a specific species or group of species is needed.
    One of the Gulf of Mexico alternatives that NMFS considered was 
suggested in a petition for rulemaking from Blue Ocean Institute et al. 
as a means of protecting western Atlantic BFT that return to the Gulf 
of Mexico to spawn. This alternative would prohibit the use of pelagic 
longline gear in HMS fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna 
spawning area from April through June (101,670 nm\2\; 3 months). 
Assuming no redistribution of effort (i.e., all hooks set in the 
proposed closure area are removed and not set in any open areas), the 
logbook data indicate that this alternative would potentially reduce 
discards of all of the species being considered from a minimum of 0.8 
percent for pelagic sharks to a maximum 21.5 percent for bluefin tuna. 
However, assuming that effort is redistributed to open areas (i.e., all 
hooks set in the proposed closure area are replaced by hooks set in 
remaining open areas),

[[Page 48809]]

bycatch is predicted to increase for all species except leatherback and 
other sea turtles. Even bluefin tuna discards, which showed a fairly 
dramatic decline without redistribution of effort, are predicted to 
increase by 9.8 percent with redistribution of effort. The apparent 
increase in predicted bluefin tuna discards with redistribution of 
effort is likely due to the fact that bluefin tuna are caught in months 
other than April through June in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the 
high number of bluefin tuna discards in other areas. This is reflected 
in some of the other alternatives analyzed as described in the draft 
HMS FMP.
    NMFS also considered alternatives that would modify existing 
closures. As with the analyses of new closures, the analyses of the 
modifying existing closures showed mixed results in terms of ecological 
benefits and economic impacts. In some cases, the modified areas would 
result in captures of smaller sized swordfish or in higher levels of 
bycatch. For these reasons, NMFS does not prefer any modifications to 
the existing closures at this time. However, because the ecological 
impacts were generally minimal, these alternatives could be considered 
as a means to offset any negative ecological or economic impacts 
resulting from any future time/area closures.
    NMFS considered but is not preferring a closure of an area off 
Florida to protect smalltooth sawfish, at this time. While the area 
examined contains the largest number of smalltooth sawfish observed 
caught in the bottom longline fishery, only five smalltooth sawfish 
have been observed caught there. It is possible that closing this area 
could displace fishing effort into an area that has higher smalltooth 
sawfish catch rates or that is more critical toward the recovery of the 
species. A Smalltooth Sawfish Recovery Team is working to produce a 
recovery plan for smalltooth sawfish and to designate critical habitat. 
In order to better ensure positive ecological impacts on sawfish and to 
minimize any economic impacts on fishermen, NMFS would prefer to wait 
until the recovery plan is complete before taking action.
    NMFS also considered prohibiting the use of pelagic longline gear 
in all HMS fisheries. This alternative could have some ecological 
benefits for any non-migratory species that remain within the U.S. EEZ. 
However, for species that travel outside the U.S. EEZ, such as HMS or 
sea turtles, this alternative could have negative ecological benefits 
because these species need to be internationally managed. In the case 
of HMS, the United States takes only a small portion of the total 
allowable catch (TAC). In the case of sea turtles, unlike many other 
countries, the United States interacts with a minimal number of turtles 
and releases all of those caught. If the United States reduces the 
amount of HMS taken commercially by a significant amount by prohibiting 
pelagic longline fishing, other countries likely would take the U.S. 
portion of the TAC and would export those fish to U.S. consumers. Many 
of those countries do not have the bycatch reduction measures that the 
United States does. Furthermore, the United States is one of the few 
countries that supply much of the research on HMS and other species 
that interact with pelagic longline gear. Additionally, prohibiting the 
use of pelagic longline gear would have significant negative economic 
impacts on fishermen, fishing communities, suppliers, and dealers in 
all Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico states. Thus, NMFS prefers to seek 
other commercial and recreational management measures that could reduce 
bycatch without the adverse international or economic impacts of 
prohibiting pelagic longline.

2. Rebuilding and Preventing Overfishing

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to rebuild overfished 
species and to prevent overfishing. The draft HMS FMP addresses 
alternatives for three stocks (northern Atlantic albacore tuna, 
finetooth sharks, and Atlantic billfish) that have been determined to 
be either overfished or experiencing overfishing.
A. Northern Albacore Tuna
    The U.S. fishery for northern Atlantic albacore is essentially 
dominated by two sectors. The commercial longline sector harvests 
albacore tuna as incidental bycatch in the swordfish and tunas pelagic 
fisheries. The recreational rod and reel sector targets albacore and 
other tunas out of northeast coastal ports. In the October 1999 Report 
to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries, NMFS identified the 
northern albacore tuna stock as overfished. International fishery 
management efforts are needed for northern albacore tuna as the United 
States actually contributes to only a small portion of northern 
albacore tuna mortality. It is likely that preventing all U.S. 
mortality would not prevent overfishing from occurring on this stock. 
Alternatives for developing a rebuilding plan for northern albacore 
were published in a proposed rule issued on May 24, 2000 (65 FR 33519), 
and were discussed in the EA/RIR/IRFA prepared for that proposed rule. 
In the final rule (December 12, 2000; 65 FR 77523), NMFS indicated 
that, in establishing the foundation for an international rebuilding 
program, it would work through ICCAT to adopt a target stock size 
together with a time frame for rebuilding that included flexibility. 
Since the final rule, the U.S delegation to ICCAT has advocated a TAC 
for northern albacore tuna set at a level less than the current 
estimate of replacement yield (34,500 mt ww). Other ICCAT members have 
not shared the U.S. position that immediate catch reductions were 
needed to rebuild the spawning stock biomass to levels that would 
support MSY. Consequently, ICCAT has responded by adopting a series of 
recommendations (annually for 2000-2003) to set a TAC at the 
replacement yield level of 34,500 mt through 2006, together with 
country specific allocations in order to control compliance. In 
addition, the 1998 recommendation on limiting vessel capacity for 
northern albacore tuna has remained in force. Irrespective of the 
established TAC, reported catches have been significantly below the 
replacement yield level in recent years. Major harvesters (European 
Union countries) have attributed the decline in catches to gear changes 
(shifting from banned gillnets to trolling) and to availability (fish 
concentrations further offshore under prevailing oceanographic 
conditions) rather than further declines in abundance. If true, the low 
catches in recent years may have allowed some rebuilding to occur. 
Depending on the results of the scheduled 2007 stock assessment, the 
United States will continue to seek an international northern albacore 
tuna rebuilding program with a target stock level, a time table, and 
reference points. Because the formal rebuilding plan was not included 
in the 1999 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks FMP, it is considered 
here for inclusion in the FMP. NMFS considered three different 
alternatives: establish a foundation for an international rebuilding 
program (the preferred alternative), no action, and establish a 
unilateral rebuilding plan. No regulatory text is proposed or required 
for this alternative. Regulatory text would be proposed, as warranted, 
once a international rebuilding plan is established.
    ICCAT has determined that the northern albacore tuna stock is below 
the biomass necessary to sustain maximum sustainable yield (MSY). 
Management advice from ICCAT's Standing Committee for Research and 
Statistics (SCRS) noted a stable stock at annual catches of 34,500 
metric tons (mt) whole weight (ww), while spawning stock biomass could 
be

[[Page 48810]]

increased if catches do not exceed 31,000 mt ww. Since ICCAT's 
recommendation establishing a TAC was issued in 2000, the United States 
has annually taken less than two percent of the recorded total annual 
international landings, averaging 416 mt ww a year. This average is 
well below the United States annual TAC allocation of 607 mt ww, which 
has not been exceeded in any year.
    The preferred alternative would seek to establish a foundation that 
can be used in negotiations with ICCAT to develop a rebuilding program 
for Atlantic northern albacore tuna, including targets for recovery, 
fishing mortality rate limits, and explicit interim milestones 
expressed in terms of measurable improvements of the stock. If 
successful, an Atlantic-wide revised TAC for northern albacore tuna, 
along with other conservation and management measures, would be adopted 
by ICCAT to rebuild the stock. The United States would then implement 
the ICCAT Rebuilding Program for albacore through appropriate measures 
(such as quotas, effort limitations, size and retention limits), in 
concert with the ICCAT recommendations, in the domestic fisheries.
    The United States is responsible for only two percent of Atlantic-
wide albacore landings; thus, the rebuilding plan would rely heavily on 
international cooperation and compliance with management measures. U.S. 
domestic fleets could experience short term negative economic impacts 
if harvest or effort restrictions become necessary; however, under 
current effort levels, the United States fleet would have to be 
restricted by more than 25 percent on average of the current TAC before 
an impact would be felt. If minimum size or retention limits were part 
of the ICCAT rebuilding plan, the United States pelagic longline fleet 
could be negatively impacted by having to discard a portion of the 
albacore catch. This may also result in an increase of dead discards if 
individual fish do not survive capture and release. The recreational 
fleet could also be impacted, as catch limitations might have a 
negative impact on the angler consumer surplus, but the extent is 
unknown, as many recreational trips targeting albacore often target 
other tunas or coastal pelagic species. This also may result in an 
increase of dead discards. The other alternatives of no action or 
unilateral action are not expected to rebuild northern albacore tuna. 
Thus, they are not preferred.

B. Finetooth Sharks

    Finetooth sharks are small coastal sharks (SCS) found in shallow, 
inshore waters of the south Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. The 2002 stock 
assessment for SCS determined that overfishing of finetooth sharks is 
occurring but that other species in the SCS complex were not overfished 
or experiencing overfishing. The next SCS stock assessment will take 
place in 2007. These sharks are primarily caught with gillnet, bottom 
longline, or recreational gear.
    There are currently only five vessels that specifically target 
sharks with gillnet gear in the South Atlantic. These vessels 
contribute less than 10 percent to the overall commercial finetooth 
shark landings. The majority of finetooth shark landings are occurring 
in other commercial fisheries that are not targeting sharks but landing 
them incidentally to other species. These fisheries include fisheries 
in state waters, fisheries managed by the Regional Fishery Management 
Councils, Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, and/or fisheries 
that are not currently managed by either state or Federal regulations. 
NMFS considered four alternatives to address overfishing of finetooth 
sharks.
    Under the preferred alternative, NMFS would identify sources of 
finetooth shark fishing mortality by: (1) contacting the Atlantic 
Fishery Management Councils, Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, 
and states to collect more data on finetooth landings outside of HMS 
fisheries, (2) expanding existing observer coverage in the existing 
directed shark gillnet fishery observer program to include all 
incidental and directed shark permit holders fishing with gillnet gear, 
and (3) ensuring that finetooth sharks are included as a select species 
for bycatch sampling in the shrimp trawl fishery observer program. NMFS 
would use this information on how and by whom finetooth sharks are 
caught and/or landed, in a new stock assessment and in guiding 
additional management measures. No regulatory text is proposed or 
required for this alternative at this time. Regulatory text would be 
proposed, as warranted, in a separate rulemaking.
    The no action alternative would not result in obtaining the 
additional information on finetooth shark landings necessary to 
determine which fisheries may be contributing to fishing mortality. 
This alternative would result in negative ecological impacts because it 
would not enable NMFS to determine which fisheries are catching 
finetooth sharks.
    NMFS also considered an alternative enacting commercial management 
measures including trip limits, a reduction in the SCS quota, closing 
the directed shark gillnet fishery, and/or gear restrictions. These 
measures could result in additional dead discards as finetooth sharks 
are susceptible to a broad range of gillnet mesh sizes, are generally 
dead at harvest, and appear to be caught in gillnet fisheries that are 
not targeting sharks and that would continue to fish for their target 
species while discarding finetooth sharks. Reducing the SCS quota would 
have limited conservation benefits as finetooth sharks only comprise 35 
percent of commercial landings and the SCS quota is not fully utilized. 
Based on comprehensive observer data, the five vessels that use gillnet 
gear to target sharks are only responsible for a small portion of the 
finetooth shark fishing mortality. Therefore, closing this fishery 
would not likely prevent overfishing. Under this alternative, fishermen 
targeting sharks would likely experience economic impacts as a result 
of having to switch gear, having to spend more time traveling to and 
from offloading sites as a result of reduced soak times or a trip 
limit, or as a result of being prevented from fishing.
    NMFS considered a fourth alternative that would require the use of 
circle hooks on recreational trips targeting SCS and/or increasing the 
minimum size for finetooth sharks. NMFS does not have any conclusive 
evidence that use of circle hooks would decrease post hooking mortality 
of sharks, although, they have proven effective at reducing post 
hooking mortality for other HMS species. Thus, NMFS is not preferring 
this alternative, but is encouraging recreational fishermen to use 
circle hooks and is considering requiring the use of circle hooks in 
billfish tournaments (see Section C Atlantic Billfish below). Finetooth 
sharks only comprise 1.5 percent of the recreational harvest of SCS, 
therefore, measures directed at the recreational fishery would likely 
have limited conservation benefits especially since the current minimum 
size limit is already above the total length at which finetooth sharks 
are sexually mature. The commercial and recreational management 
measures described in the non-preferred alternatives may be necessary 
once NMFS has determined which fisheries are contributing to finetooth 
shark fishing mortality and/or further information on finetooth shark 
status is attained.

[[Page 48811]]

C. Atlantic Billfish
    Atlantic blue and white marlin are overfished with overfishing 
continuing. West Atlantic sailfish are also overfished. The most recent 
stock assessments for Atlantic blue and white marlin indicate that 
total marlin stock abundance is at approximately 40 percent and 12 
percent, respectively, of biomass levels necessary to support maximum 
sustainable yield (BMSY). The assessments further indicate 
that the fishing mortality rates for Atlantic blue and white marlin are 
estimated to be approximately 4 and 8.25 times higher, respectively, 
than rates which would allow achievement of the maximum sustainable 
yield (FMSY). The most recent stock assessment for west 
Atlantic sailfish was unable to estimate BMSY or 
FMSY, however the assessment considered current catch levels 
sustainable. Current Atlantic-wide stock status of Atlantic blue and 
white marlin, including biomass levels and fishing mortality rates, as 
per the most recent population assessments, do not appear to be 
consistent with achieving domestic management goals of 1.3 BMSY 
for Atlantic blue and white marlin. The United States is proposing 
management measures that will help in achieving this goal, and will 
continue to work with ICCAT on Atlantic billfish rebuilding efforts.
    Given the primarily catch-and-release nature of the U.S. 
recreational Atlantic billfish fishery, and the resultant low level of 
domestic landings, it is appropriate to focus management efforts on 
reducing aggregate fishing mortality, including post-release mortality 
and mortalities associated with landings, rather than reducing landings 
alone. The proposed management measures are anticipated to provide 
further reductions in domestic billfish mortalities in the directed 
recreational Atlantic billfish fishery while minimizing and mitigating 
adverse socio-economic impacts to the extent practicable. These 
proposed management measures are described below under: gear 
restrictions and landings restrictions.
i. Gear Restrictions
    NMFS considered three gear restriction alternatives, including a no 
action alternative. NMFS is proposing at 50 CFR 635.21(e)(2) to limit 
participants in Atlantic billfish tournaments to deploying only non-
offset circle hooks when using natural bait or natural bait/artificial 
lure combinations, effective January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2011. 
This would mean that no person participating in an HMS fishing 
tournament for Atlantic billfish would be allowed to deploy a J-hook or 
offset circle hook in combination with natural bait or a natural bait/
artificial lure arrangement.
    Circle hooks have been shown to significantly reduce injuries and 
post-release mortality as compared to J-hooks for billfish and other 
species. Under certain assumptions, NMFS estimates that requiring 
circle hooks with natural bait or natural bait/artificial lure rigs in 
billfish tournaments could provide a 23-percent absolute reduction in 
the post-release mortality rate for white marlin released in 
tournaments, which equates to a 65.7-percent reduction relative to J-
hooks. Again, under certain assumptions, requiring circle hooks could 
result in an estimated 302 Atlantic white marlin surviving a catch-and-
release event during an average year, that would otherwise be expected 
to die after release. NMFS anticipates that this alternative would also 
provide unquantified positive mortality benefits for other species with 
which billfish tournament participants interact, including, but not 
limited to, sailfish, blue marlin, tunas, dolphin, and wahoo. 
Additional ecological benefits may also accrue outside of tournaments 
as anglers become proficient and comfortable with circle hooks and 
increase voluntary use outside of tournaments.
    NMFS anticipates that socio-economic impacts of this alternative 
would be limited. Hooks represent a minor capital investment relative 
to other costs associated with participating in the billfish fishery. 
NMFS estimates that requiring circle hooks may result in a minor 
positive economic impact for billfish tournament participants as 
information suggests that circle hooks cost slightly less than 
comparable J-hooks, on average. Impacts on hook manufacturers, 
retailers, and anglers would also likely be limited given that J-hooks 
would still be permitted outside of tournaments, and within tournaments 
if paired with artificial lures. Further, the delay in date of 
effectiveness should provide anglers, hook manufacturers, and hook 
retailers, adequate time to utilize stocks of J-hooks that might 
otherwise be used by, or sold to, tournament participants.
    The preferred alternative would allow Atlantic billfish tournament 
participants to continue to use J-hooks with artificial lures on the 
same trip that they are using circle hooks with natural bait. NMFS 
received public comment during scoping and on the predraft document 
that fishermen tend to target white marlin and sailfish with natural 
baits while either drifting or slow trolling and target blue marlin by 
trolling at a higher rate of speed with the fish striking at the lure. 
What is known about hooking mechanics, as well as fishing practices and 
feeding preferences for blue marlin, indicates that trolling circle 
hooks at high speed would likely be ineffective at capturing these 
striking fish. Blue marlin are more likely to be captured as they 
strike at a fast moving lure, as opposed to deeply ingesting a bait or 
lure. This is believed to result in increased rates of hooking in the 
mouth or jaw with less resultant damage to vital tissues or internal 
organs and, ultimately, lower rates of post-release mortality. Known 
rates of post-release mortality for Atlantic white and blue marlin 
captured on recreational gear using J-hooks, 35 percent and 11 percent, 
respectively, supports this contention. As such, NMFS is not proposing 
to eliminate the use of J-hooks with artificial lures.
    The no action alternative would maintain existing recreational 
management measures such as minimum sizes, limiting allowable gear to 
rod and reel only, permitting requirements, and reporting requirements. 
As described above, these measures, in addition to those on the 
commercial fishery, have not been effective at to reducing fishing 
mortality to the appropriate levels. As such, additional actions, 
including international actions, are needed. Furthermore, while minimum 
size limits can constrain landings and associated mortalities by 
limiting the universe of potential fish that qualify for landing, they 
have little effect on post-release mortality.
    NMFS also considered requiring circle hooks with natural baits for 
all participants in all segments of HMS recreational fisheries. While 
this alternative could reduce mortality rates on billfish, it was not 
preferred at this time because there are only limited data on the 
impacts of circle hooks on other HMS species, including effects on 
post-release mortality and catch rates. As such, the impacts of this 
alternative on anglers targeting species other than billfish could not 
be adequately analyzed at this time. As billfish anglers become more 
familiar with circle hooks and begin using them to target other HMS, 
NMFS will likely gather additional information on any potential impacts 
on other species. Similar to the preferred alternative, this 
alternative would allow anglers to continue to use J-hooks with 
artificial lures.
ii. Landings Restrictions
    Currently, NMFS has no measures in place, other than minimum sizes, 
that directly limit landings of Atlantic

[[Page 48812]]

billfish in the Atlantic directed billfish fishery. NMFS considered six 
alternatives, including no action, and is preferring two alternatives 
that could limit landings in the directed Atlantic billfish fishery and 
the mortality associated with such landings, consistent with 
international obligations. The first preferred alternative would codify 
at 50 CFR 635.27 an international recommendation on recreational 
billfish landing limits. The second preferred alternative would allow a 
catch-and-release only fishery for Atlantic white marlin for five 
years, effective in 2007 (see proposed regulations at 50 CFR 635.20, 
635.22, and 635.30).
    At the 2000 ICCAT annual meeting, the United States agreed to limit 
recreational landings of Atlantic blue and white marlin to 250 fish, 
combined, on an annual basis. To codify and implement this 
recommendation, the first preferred alternative would provide for 
inseason minimum size adjustments, effective January 1, 2007. The 
current minimum size limits restrict marlin landings by reducing the 
pool of available legal-sized fish. However, increased effort or 
changes in angler behavior could result in increased landings and 
mortality. Under this alternative, NMFS could increase the minimum size 
of Atlantic blue and white marlin, if necessary, to between 117 - 138 
inches (297 - 350.5 cm) and 70 - 79 inches (178 - 201 cm), 
respectively, during a fishing year to slow landings.
    Allowing for inseason minimum size increases could minimize 
potential adverse socio-economic impacts on late season tournament 
operators and fishery participants by slowing landing rates and 
allowing landings to continue over the entire fishing year. 
Nevertheless, if the 250-marlin limit is achieved or projected to be 
achieved, despite inseason increases in size limits, no Atlantic blue 
or white marlin would be permitted to be taken, retained, or possessed 
from the date at which the limit is achieved or projected to be 
achieved. Minimum size limits would return to the current minimum size 
limits at the start of the subsequent fishing year. Possession of 
marlin would also be permitted at the start of the next fishing year, 
subject to the 250-limit adjusted for any prior overharvest. Consistent 
with ICCAT recommendations, NMFS would subtract any overharvest from 
the subsequent fishing year's landing limit and may carryover any 
underharvest to the subsequent fishing year.
    Prior to the start of each fishing year, NMFS would file with the 
Office of the Federal Register an action establishing the annual 
landing limit for recreationally-caught Atlantic blue and white marlin. 
The need for inseason action and the specific action taken (minimum 
size increase or shift to catch-and-release) would be based upon a 
review of landings, time remaining until conclusion of the current 
fishing year, current and historical landings trends, and any other 
relevant factors. Inseason adjustments would be made by filing an 
adjustment with the Office of the Federal Register. In no case should 
the adjustments be effective less than five days after the date of 
publication.
    Codification of ICCAT landing limits for Atlantic blue and white 
marlin, as well as the attendant compliance mechanisms and carryover 
procedures, are anticipated to have limited positive ecological 
impacts, in and of themselves, given the relatively low level of known 
United States landings. The United States was within the marlin landing 
limit for two of three reported years, and the 2002 exceedence was 
fully offset by carrying forward prior underharvest. These regulations 
may prevent otherwise unrestricted future increases in mortalities 
associated with known landings.
    Difficulties associated with quantifying current marlin landings, 
uncertainty regarding the number of marlin fishermen and absolute 
effort, and uncertainty regarding changes in angler behavior when faced 
with increased minimum sizes or a catch-and-release fishery make 
quantifying the potential socio-economic impacts of this alternative 
difficult. Nevertheless, NMFS