Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures, 41392-41412 [E7-14536]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 144 (Friday, July 27, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41392-41412]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14536]



[[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

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 144 / Friday, July 27, 2007 / 
Proposed Rules

[[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: https://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 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. Additional