Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures; Amendment 3, 36892-36921 [E9-17498]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 141 (Friday, July 24, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36892-36921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17498]



[[Page 36891]]

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

Part IV





Department of Commerce





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



National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration



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



50 CFR Parts 229, 600, and 635



Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures; 
Amendment 3; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 141 / Friday, July 24, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 36892]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Parts 229, 600, and 635

[Docket No. 080519678-8685-01]
RIN 0648-AW65


Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management 
Measures; Amendment 3

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) 
amendment; request for comments; public hearings.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of the draft Amendment 3 to 
the Consolidated Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery 
Management Plan (FMP). Amendment 3 examines different management 
alternatives available to rebuild blacknose sharks consistent with the 
2007 small coastal shark (SCS) stock assessment, the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and 
other applicable law. Amendment 3 also examines management alternatives 
to end overfishing of blacknose sharks and shortfin mako sharks, 
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and also proposes adding 
smooth dogfish under NMFS management. The proposed rule to implement 
Amendment 3 would, among other things, establish a quota for blacknose 
sharks and non-blacknose SCS, prohibit the use of gillnet gear to catch 
sharks from South Carolina south, prohibit the retention of blacknose 
sharks in recreational fisheries, take action at the international 
level to end overfishing of shortfin mako through participation in 
appropriate international fisheries organizations, such as 
International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas 
(ICCAT), promote the live release of shortfin mako sharks, add smooth 
dogfish under NMFS management, establish a commercial quota for smooth 
dogfish, require smooth dogfish fishermen to obtain the appropriate 
Federal permit, and establish a mechanism for specifying Annual Catch 
Limits (ACLs) and Accountability Measures (AMs) for Atlantic sharks. 
These changes could affect all fishermen, commercial and recreational, 
who fish for sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the 
Caribbean Sea.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule, draft Amendment 3 and draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and related analyses must be 
received no later than 5 p.m. on September 22, 2009. NMFS will hold 
nine public hearings on this proposed rule and draft Amendment 3 in 
August and September 2009. For specific dates and times see the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

ADDRESSES: The public hearings will be held in New Hampshire, New 
Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, and 
Louisiana. For specific locations see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of 
this document.
    Written comments on the proposed rule and draft Amendment 3 may be 
submitted to Karyl Brewster-Geisz, Highly Migratory Species Management 
Division:
     Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 
Please mark the outside of the envelope Shark Amendment 3 comments.
     Fax: 301-713-1917.
     Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public 
comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal https://www.regulations.gov.
    Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record 
and will generally be posted to Portal https://www.regulations.gov 
without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, 
name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be 
publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or 
otherwise sensitive or protected information.
    NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter ``n/a'' in the required 
fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic 
comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or 
Adobe PDF file formats only.
    Copies of the draft Amendment 3 to the Consolidated HMS FMP, 
including the DEIS, the latest shark stock assessments, and other 
documents relevant to this rule are available from the Highly Migratory 
Species Management Division Web site at https://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms or by contacting LeAnn Southward Hogan at 301-713-2347.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karyl Brewster-Geisz or LeAnn 
Southward Hogan at 301-713-2347 or fax 301-713-1917 or Jackie Wilson at 
240-338-3936 or fax 404-806-9188.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. In 1999, NMFS revised the 1993 FMP and included 
swordfish and tunas in the 1999 FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and 
Sharks (1999 FMP). The 1999 FMP was amended in 2003, and in 2006, NMFS 
consolidated the Atlantic tunas, swordfish, and shark FMP and its 
amendments and the Atlantic billfish FMP and its amendments in the 2006 
Consolidated Atlantic HMS FMP. This amendment amends the 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP. The 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments 
are implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
    On May 7, 2008, NMFS announced its determination that blacknose 
sharks are overfished with overfishing occurring while Atlantic 
sharpnose sharks, bonnethead sharks, and finetooth sharks are not 
overfished and do not have overfishing occurring (73 FR 25665). These 
determinations were based on the results of the 2007 SCS stock 
assessment, which was conducted in a manner similar to the Southeast 
Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process that is used by the South 
Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils. 
NMFS has found that this 2007 SCS stock assessment is the best 
available science regarding the status of SCS. The status determination 
criteria that are used to determine the status of Atlantic HMS are 
fully described in Chapter 3 of the 1999 FMP and are not repeated here.
    NMFS has also determined that blue shark stocks are not overfished 
and overfishing is not occurring and that shortfin mako shark stocks 
are not overfished, are approaching an overfished condition, and have 
overfishing occurring. These determinations are based on international 
stock assessments conducted by the ICCAT's Standing Committee for 
Research and Science (SCRS). While these assessments are international, 
the status determination criteria are the same as those used for SCS 
and all Atlantic sharks. NMFS has determined the ICCAT stock assessment 
to be the best available science for managing shortfin mako and blue 
sharks.
    Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is required to establish a 
rebuilding plan for blacknose sharks and to end overfishing for 
blacknose and shortfin mako sharks. NMFS announced its intent to 
conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) on May 7, 2008 (73 FR 
25665), and held

[[Page 36893]]

five scoping meetings in 2008 (73 FR 37932, July 2, 2008; 73 FR 53407, 
September 13, 2008). During scoping, NMFS also consulted with the HMS 
Advisory Panel in October 2008 (73 FR 53407, September 13, 2008), the 
five Regional Fishery Management Councils on the east coast, and the 
Atlantic States and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions. NMFS also 
presented information at a bycatch reduction workshop that was held by 
the Gulf and South Atlantic Fisheries Foundation. In February 2009, 
NMFS presented the Predraft of Amendment 3 to the HMS Advisory Panel 
(73 FR 67135, November 13, 2008).
    Based in part on the comments received during scoping and from the 
HMS Advisory Panel on the Predraft, NMFS proposes a number of 
management measures within Amendment 3. Consistent with the 2006 
Consolidated HMS FMP objectives, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other 
applicable laws, the objectives for this proposed rule are to: (1) 
Implement a rebuilding plan for blacknose sharks; (2) end overfishing 
for blacknose and shortfin mako sharks; (3) provide an opportunity for 
the sustainable harvest of finetooth, bonnethead, Atlantic sharpnose 
sharks and other sharks, as appropriate; (4) prevent overfishing of 
Atlantic sharks; and (5) consider management measures for smooth 
dogfish sharks in Federal waters, as appropriate.
    In addition to the proposed management alternatives, NMFS proposes 
to take additional administrative actions to clarify regulations and 
update various scientific and other names. These administrative actions 
are described in the section entitled ``Administrative Actions.'' NMFS 
also discusses ACLs and AMs for the Atlantic shark fisheries to include 
a mechanism for specifying ACLs and AMs for Atlantic sharks.
    NMFS prepared a DEIS for the draft Amendment 3 that discusses the 
impact on the environment as a result of this rule and the proposed 
management measures. A copy of the DEIS/draft Amendment 3 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.

ACLs and AMs

    The Magnuson-Stevens Conservation Act as amended and reauthorized 
in 2007 included a mandate in Section 303(a)(15) for each FMP to 
include a mechanism for specifying ACLs at a level to prevent 
overfishing and to include AMs to ensure ACLs would not be exceeded. On 
January 16, 2009, NMFS published the final National Standard 1 
Guidelines (NSG1) which, among other things, provided procedures and 
guidance for implementing the ACL and AM requirements of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act (74 FR 3178). Per NSG1, ACLs and AMs apply ``unless 
otherwise provided for under an international agreement in which the 
United States participates.'' While SCS, LCS, and pelagic sharks are 
predominately managed through domestic management measures, in recent 
years ICCAT has adopted a number of recommendations regarding sharks 
(e.g., ICCAT recommendations 2004-10, 2005-05, 2007-06, and 2008-07). 
The Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA) authorizes Secretary of 
Commerce to promulgate regulations, as may be necessary and 
appropriate, to implement binding ICCAT recommendations. Some shark 
species or complexes (e.g., SCS) will likely be managed solely through 
domestic actions taken under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. ACLs and AMs 
will apply to those species. Other shark species (e.g., shortfin mako 
sharks) will be managed via a mix of domestic actions taken under the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act and international actions taken pursuant to 
international fishery agreements or through other appropriate 
international organizations. The method for managing specific species 
will likely change overtime as Regional Fishery Management 
Organizations, including ICCAT if appropriate, begin to manage sharks 
internationally. While the proposed rule provides a mechanism for 
setting ACLs and AMs for the pelagic shark complex, which includes 
shortfin mako, it is not possible for the U.S. to end overfishing of 
the species without international cooperation since the relative U.S. 
contribution to fishing mortality is minor compared to cumulative 
fishing mortality related to foreign fishing outside the U.S. EEZ.
    According to NSG1, Section 303(a)(15) mandates that a mechanism for 
specifying ACLs at a level to prevent overfishing and AMs to ensure 
ACLs would not be exceeded be included in FMPs. The process for 
establishing ACLs and AMs for Atlantic sharks is outlined below. NMFS 
has determined that the overfishing limit (OFL) is greater than or 
equal to the allowable biological catch (ABC) limit, which is greater 
than or equal to the ACL. As such, NMFS is establishing for all 
Atlantic sharks the following guidelines to use when establishing ACLs 
and AMs. NMFS considers the OFL to be the annual amount of catch that 
corresponds to the estimate of maximum fishing mortality threshold 
(MFMT) applied to the stock abundance. The ABC would be established to 
account for uncertainty in the assessment. Ideally, the actual ABC 
would be established as part of stock assessment reports, results, and/
or conclusions. However, because the SCS assessment predates the ACL 
final rule and until new stock assessments for HMS incorporate the new 
ACL and AM guidance, for sharks, NMFS is determining that the ABC is 
lower than the OFL to account for scientific uncertainty, and the ABC 
is equal to the ACL.
    In general, the ACL is equivalent to the total allowable catch 
(TAC) for all the fisheries that interact with a given shark species. 
The TAC, or ACL, is provided as part of the stock assessment report, 
result, and/or conclusion. If the OFL can be estimated and the ABC is 
not available, then the ACL should be less than the OFL to account for 
scientific uncertainty. For overfished shark stocks, the ACL is equal 
to the stock assessment projection that shows rebuilding with a 70-
percent chance of success. NMFS uses the 70 percent probability for 
rebuilding for sharks given their life history traits, such as late age 
of maturity and low fecundity compared to other fish stocks. This ACL 
is lower than the OFL. Additionally, NMFS may establish ``sector 
ACLs,'' which would include landings and discards, and ``commercial 
landings components of the sector ACL,'' which would be the commercial 
landings quota for specific shark fisheries.
    For sharks, the quotas are generally established for the commercial 
fishery, not the recreational fishery. NMFS has not established quotas 
for the recreational shark fishery due to the difficulty in estimating 
recreational catches in real time, but may consider doing so in the 
future. While the shark recreational fishery does not have a formal 
quota, catches within the recreational shark fishery are considered 
when stock assessments are conducted and taken into account when NMFS 
establishes the OFL, ABC, ACL, and TAC. NMFS also takes the 
recreational catches, along with discards from the commercial sector, 
into account when establishing the commercial quota or ``commercial 
landings components of the sector ACL.'' Because sector ACLs are being 
used, sector AMs will also be used. This proposed rule changes the 
quotas for SCS and establishes a commercial quota for smooth dogfish. 
It does not change the quotas that were

[[Page 36894]]

previously established for LCS and pelagic sharks.
    The NSG1 also requires NMFS to establish AMs. NMFS already has 
established AMs along with measures analogous to allowable catch 
targets (ACTs) in commercial Atlantic shark fisheries. Specifically, 
overharvests of the commercial shark quotas are deducted from the next 
fishing year's quota. In addition, underharvests for shark species that 
are not overfished or are not experiencing overfishing are added to the 
base quota the following year and capped at 50 percent of the base 
quota. There is no carryover of underharvests for shark species that 
are unknown, overfished, or experiencing overfishing. In addition, NMFS 
closes the quota for each shark species/complex by filing a notice in 
the Federal Register when 80 percent of a given quota is filled. The 
closure goes into effect five days from the date of filing. Eighty 
percent of the shark quota is, therefore, the annual catch target 
(ACT). The measures in this proposed rule and in draft Amendment 3 do 
not change these AMs.

Blacknose Shark Rebuilding Plan

    Under National Standard (NS) 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 600.310), NMFS is required to 
``prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the OY 
from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry.'' In order to 
accomplish this, NMFS must determine the maximum sustainable yield 
(MSY) and specify status determination criteria to allow a 
determination of the status of the stock. In cases where the fishery is 
overfished, NMFS must take action to rebuild the stock (by specifying 
rebuilding targets). NMFS must take action with ACLs and AMs to prevent 
overfishing for stocks currently overfishing by 2010, and for all other 
stocks beginning 2011 onward. NMFS outlined the status determination 
criteria and a set of rebuilding targets in the 1999 FMP for Atlantic 
Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks and maintained those criteria and targets 
in the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. This amendment does not change these 
criteria or targets.
    As described in the NSG1, if a stock is overfished, NMFS is 
required to ``prepare an FMP, FMP amendment, or proposed regulations * 
* * to specify a time period for ending overfishing and rebuilding the 
stock or stock complex that will be as short as possible as described 
under section 304(e)(4) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act'' (50 CFR 
600.310(j)(2)(ii)). A rebuilding ABC must be set to reflect the annual 
catch that is consistent with the schedule of the fishing mortality 
rates in the rebuilding plan. The time frame to rebuild the stock or 
stock complex must be as short as possible taking into account a number 
of factors including: The status and biology of the stock or stock 
complex; interactions between the stock or stock complex and other 
components of the marine ecosystem; the needs of the fishing 
communities; recommendations by international organizations in which 
the United States participates; and management measures under an 
international agreement in which the United States participates. The 
time frame for rebuilding may not exceed ten (10) years unless a longer 
time is otherwise dictated by the biology of the species, other 
environmental conditions, or management measures established under an 
international agreement in which the U.S. participates.
    The lower limit of the specified time frame for rebuilding is 
determined by the status and biology of the stock and is defined as ``* 
* * the amount of time the stock or stock complex is expected to take 
to rebuild to its MSY biomass level in the absence of any fishing 
mortality'' (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)(A)). The NS 1 guidelines specify 
two strategies for determining the rebuilding time frame depending on 
the lower limit of the specified time frame for rebuilding. The first 
strategy (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)(C)) states that: ``If Tmin 
[minimum time for rebuilding a stock] for the stock or stock complex is 
10 years or less, then the maximum time allowable for rebuilding 
(Tmax) that stock to its BMSY is 10 years.'' The 
second strategy (50 CFR 600.310(j)(3)(i)(D)) specifies that if 
Tmin for the stock or stock complex exceeds 10 years, then 
the maximum time allowable for rebuilding a stock or stock complex to 
its BMSY is Tmin plus the length of time 
associated with one generation time for that stock or stock complex. 
``Generation time'' is the average length of time between when an 
individual is born and the birth of its offspring.
    The latest 2007 stock assessment of SCS in the U.S. Atlantic and 
Gulf of Mexico is a peer-reviewed assessment and was conducted in a 
SEDAR-like process. The 2007 assessment includes catch estimates 
through 2005, biological data, and a number of fishery-independent and 
fishery-dependent catch rate series. The stock assessment considered 
several rebuilding scenarios for blacknose sharks and found that, under 
a no fishing scenario, the stock would take 11 years to rebuild. Adding 
a generation time (8 years), as described under NS1 for species that 
require more than 10 years to rebuild even if fishing mortality was 
eliminated entirely, the target year for rebuilding the stock was 
estimated to be 2027 (8 years mean generation time + 11 years to 
rebuild if fishing mortality eliminated = 19 years including 2009). 
Thus, the stock assessment found that the shortest time possible for 
the stock to be rebuilt based on the biology of blacknose sharks is 
2027 with a 70-percent probability of success if a TAC of 19,200 
blacknose sharks per year were implemented across all fisheries that 
interact with blacknose sharks. As described above and in the DEIS, 
NMFS uses a 70-percent probability of rebuilding to ensure that the 
intended results of a management action are actually realized given the 
life history traits of sharks.
    According to the latest blacknose shark stock assessment, an 
average of 86,381 blacknose sharks were killed each year between 1999-
2005 in different fisheries either as targeted catch or as bycatch. In 
order to attain the blacknose shark TAC of 19,200, NMFS needs to reduce 
the number of blacknose sharks killed each year across all fisheries by 
at least 78 percent. The stock assessment indicates that approximately 
45 percent of blacknose sharks are killed as bycatch in the Gulf of 
Mexico and Atlantic shrimp trawl fisheries, and the rest of the 
mortality occurs within the HMS Atlantic commercial and recreational 
shark fisheries. NMFS will continue to work and coordinate with the 
Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils to create 
management measures to meet bycatch reduction measures to reduce 
mortality of blacknose sharks in the shrimp trawl fisheries, as 
appropriate. NMFS will also work to reduce the mortality of blacknose 
sharks in Atlantic shark fisheries through the implementation of 
management measures, as analyzed in draft Amendment 3.
    Currently, average commercial annual landings of blacknose sharks 
within the Atlantic shark fisheries are 27,484 blacknose sharks, and 
average annual commercial dead discards are 5,007 blacknose sharks. A 
78-percent reduction in commercial blacknose landings (6,046 blacknose 
sharks per year) and discards (1,102 blacknose sharks per year) in the 
Atlantic shark fisheries equates to a total mortality of 7,148 
blacknose sharks per year in the commercial fishery (6,046 + 1,102 = 
7,148). Assuming an average commercial blacknose weight across all 
commercial gears (including shrimp trawl) of 6.3 lb dw, these 7,148 
blacknose sharks is equivalent to 45,032

[[Page 36895]]

lb dw (7,148 blacknose sharks x 6.3 lb dw = 45,032 lb dw)(34 mt dw). In 
addition, on average, 54 blacknose sharks are taken each year under the 
exempted fishing program. Given the average weight of the blacknose 
sharks taken under the exempted fishing program is 3.3 lb dw, this 
equals approximately 178.2 lb dw of blacknose sharks landed under the 
exempted fishing program each year. Thus, no more than 44,853.8 lb dw 
(45,032 lb dw--178.2 lb dw = 44,853.8 lb dw)(20.3 mt dw) or 7,094 
blacknose sharks (7,148 blacknose sharks--54 blacknose sharks taken in 
the EFP program = 7,094 blacknose sharks) can be landed by the 
commercial fishery. As such, the commercial sector ACL for blacknose 
sharks is equal to 44,853.8 lb dw.
    In addition, on average, the recreational fishery landed 10,408 
blacknose sharks per year. A 78-percent reduction in recreational 
landings would result in 2,290 blacknose sharks per year. This results 
in an overall annual allowance of 9,438 blacknose sharks in all HMS 
fisheries.

The Proposed Management Measures

    The following is a summary of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIS 
for Amendment 3. Additional analyses and descriptions are provided in 
the DEIS.

A. SCS Commercial Quotas

    NMFS is considering several alternatives for SCS relating to 
commercial quotas and species complexes. The alternatives for the 
Atlantic shark fishery range from maintaining the status quo to 
restructuring the SCS complex and prohibiting the retention of 
blacknose sharks. Specifically, the alternatives considered are: 
alternative A1--no action; alternative A2--establish a non-blacknose 
SCS quota of 392.5 mt dw and a blacknose commercial quota of 13.5 mt 
dw; alternative A3--establish a non-blacknose SCS quota of 42.7 mt dw, 
a blacknose commercial quota of 16.6 mt dw, and allow all current 
authorized gears for sharks; alternative A4--establish a non-blacknose 
SCS quota of 56.9 mt dw, a blacknose commercial quota of 14.9 mt dw, 
and remove shark gillnet gear as an authorized gear for sharks; and 
alternative A5--close the entire SCS fishery. Alternative A4 is the 
preferred alternative.
    Alternative A4, the preferred alternative, would remove blacknose 
sharks from the SCS quota and create a blacknose shark-specific quota. 
The quota of the non-blacknose SCS would be 56.9 mt dw (125,487 lb dw), 
which is a 76-percent reduction from the average landings of finetooth, 
Atlantic sharpnose, and bonnethead sharks from 2004 through 2007. Under 
this alternative, NMFS would establish a blacknose shark-specific quota 
of 14.9 mt dw (32,753 lb dw), which is the amount of blacknose sharks 
that would be harvested while the quota for non-blacknose SCS is 
harvested assuming similar catch rates and number of trips as from 
2004-2007. Under this alternative, fishermen with an incidental shark 
limited access permit would not be allowed to retain any blacknose 
sharks. In addition, this alternative assumes that gillnet gear would 
not be allowed to harvest sharks from South Carolina south (see the 
alternatives in section B below) and that fishermen would fish for SCS, 
including blacknose sharks, in a directed fashion until either the non-
blacknose SCS or blacknose shark quota reached 80 percent. At that 
time, both the non-blacknose SCS and the blacknose shark fisheries 
would close, all SCS would be discarded, and fishermen would target 
other species and continue to catch SCS as bycatch. Assuming the 
fishery operates in this fashion, NMFS estimates that total mortality 
for blacknose sharks would be 37,763 lb dw, which is below the 
commercial landings component of 44,853.8 lb dw for commercially caught 
blacknose sharks within the Atlantic shark fisheries.
    Alternative A4 is anticipated to have positive ecological impacts 
for blacknose, Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and finetooth sharks as 
it would reduce landings by 76 percent for blacknose sharks and 76 
percent for non-blacknose SCS based on current landings. In addition, 
it would reduce discards by 81 percent for blacknose sharks and 2 to 3 
percent for non-blacknose SCS based on current discards if gillnets are 
prohibited in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean under either 
alternative B2 or B3 (described below). Cumulatively, this would reduce 
mortality of blacknose sharks by at least 78 percent and would meet the 
rebuilding plan for blacknose sharks. Discards of blacknose and non-
blacknose SCS predominately occur on BLL gear, therefore, removing 
gillnet gear is not expected to affect discards of either blacknose 
sharks or non-blacknose SCS. NMFS assumes that if retention of sharks 
is prohibited with gillnet gear, directed gillnet fishing for sharks 
would cease; however, fishermen would continue to use gillnet gear to 
target other species and discard any sharks that were caught. In 
addition, alternative A4 would reduce landings of large coastal sharks 
(LCS), predominately blacktip sharks, which are also caught in gillnet 
gear. If gillnets are prohibited in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and 
Caribbean Sea under alternative A4 and either alternative B2 or B3, 
NMFS estimates that LCS landings could decrease by 101,409 to 104,132 
lb dw compared to current average landings of 3,170,155 lb dw from 
2004-2007. Dead discards could decrease by 50,797 and 52,979 lb dw 
compared to average annual discards of 359,129 lb dw according to 
Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP. These LCS reductions 
could be greater given management measures that were implemented under 
Amendment 2 to the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP, which reduced quotas and 
trip limits in the directed LCS fishery starting in July 2008. 
Therefore, NMFS anticipates that this alternative would also have 
positive ecological impacts on LCS.
    Under this alternative, total annual gross revenues from landings 
of non-blacknose SCS are anticipated to be $159,368. This is a 76-
percent reduction in annual gross revenues from the gross revenues 
expected under alternative A1 ($661,513). Since directed permit holders 
land approximately 97 percent of the non-blacknose SCS, NMFS 
anticipates that directed permit holders would lose more in annual 
gross revenues compared to incidental permit holders. Under this 
alternative, total annual gross revenues from non-blacknose SCS for 
directed shark permit holders would be $153,841, which is a loss of 
$487,165 in annual gross revenues or a 76-percent reduction in annual 
gross revenues from the gross revenues expected under alternative A1 
($641,006). Incidental permit holders land approximately 3 percent of 
the non-blacknose SCS. Total annual gross revenues from non-blacknose 
SCS for incidental shark permit holders would be $4,922, which is a 
loss of $15,585 in annual gross revenues or a 76-percent reduction in 
annual gross revenues from the gross revenues expected under 
alternative A1 ($20,507).
    The blacknose shark quota would also be reduced by 76 percent based 
on average landings from 2004-2007. Total annual gross revenues for the 
blacknose shark landings for the directed fishery could decrease from 
$172,197 under alternative A1 to $41,269 under preferred alternative 
A4. This is a loss of $130,928 or a 76-percent reduction in total 
annual gross revenues from blacknose sharks for directed shark 
fishermen. Because incidental fishermen would not be able to retain 
blacknose sharks, they would lose an estimated $12,054 in annual gross 
revenues from blacknose shark landings.

[[Page 36896]]

    This alternative would also prohibit the use of gillnets to land 
sharks as explained under alternatives B2 and B3. Under alternative A4 
and either B2 or B3, lost annual gross revenues for all vessels landing 
non-blacknose SCS using gillnet gear would be between $275,008 and 
$287,427. This is a reduction of 42 to 43 percent in the annual gross 
revenues for the entire non-blacknose SCS fishery compared to 
alternative A1 ($661,513). Total lost annual gross revenues for 
directed shark permit holders using gillnet gear to land non-blacknose 
SCS would be between $268,580 and $275,832, which is a reduction of 42 
to 45 percent from the annual gross revenues for directed permits 
holders under alternative A1 ($641,006).
    The five to seven gillnet vessels that primarily target non-
blacknose SCS may experience higher losses. Total lost annual gross 
revenues for incidental shark permit holders using gillnet gear to land 
non-blacknose SCS under alternative A4 and either B2 or B3 would be 
between $6,429 and $11,595, which is a reduction of 43 to 68 percent 
from alternative A1 ($20,507).
    In addition, LCS are also landed with gillnet gear. As such, 
alternative A4 in combination with alternatives B2 and B3 would also 
impact LCS fishermen using gillnet gear. Under alternative A4 and 
either B2 or B3, lost annual gross revenues for all vessels landing LCS 
using gillnet gear would be between $106,479 and $109,339. This is a 
reduction of three percent in the annual gross revenues for the entire 
LCS fishery compared to alternative A1 ($3,328,663).
    NMFS prefers alternative A4 at this time because by reducing 
overall effort in the SCS fishery, NMFS would reduce the level of 
blacknose shark discards such that, assuming all the mortality from 
other fisheries is also reduced appropriately, the total blacknose 
shark mortality would stay below the TAC needed to rebuild the stock. 
Under alternative A4, blacknose shark landings would decrease by 76 
percent and discards would decrease by 81 percent. Landings for non-
blacknose SCS would also decrease by 76 percent and discards could 
decrease by 2-3 percent. In addition, alternative A4 in combination 
with either alternative B2 or B3 could decrease landings of LCS by only 
three percent, but could decrease discards of LCS by up to 15 percent. 
These reductions in landings of all SCS would result in a 76-percent 
reduction in gross revenues from SCS landings overall; however, such a 
reduction is needed to lower the overall mortality on blacknose sharks. 
While gillnet fishermen would be impacted the most and would have 
estimated annual gross revenue losses between $377,928 and $365,067, 
alternative A4 would allow for a higher non-blacknose SCS than 
blacknose shark quota (56.9 mt dw) compared to alternative A3 (42.7 mt 
dw) because associated gillnet effort is anticipated to decline more 
under alternative A4 leaving a larger quota available for the rest of 
the SCS fishery. This higher quota would benefit the larger SCS 
fishery, while the prohibition on the use of gillnets would affect a 
small number of directed gillnet fishermen.
    Under alternative A1, the no action alternative, NMFS would 
maintain the current SCS complex and annual quota for the complex of 
454 metric ton (mt) dressed weight (dw). Under this alternative, there 
would be neutral social and economic impacts to directed and incidental 
fishermen in the short-term as the gross revenues from SCS landings, 
including blacknose shark landings, would be the same as the status 
quo. These measures would also have neutral ecological impacts for 
finetooth, Atlantic sharpnose, and bonnethead sharks within the SCS 
complex, which have all been determined to not be overfished with no 
overfishing occurring. However, this alternative would have negative 
ecological impacts on blacknose sharks, which have been determined to 
be overfished with overfishing occurring, as there would be no 
reduction in current blacknose landings. Without reductions in current 
blacknose shark mortality, NMFS would not be able to achieve the TAC of 
19,200 blacknose sharks per year recommended by the 2007 blacknose 
shark stock assessment. Without achieving such a reduction in 
mortality, blacknose sharks would not be able to rebuild within their 
specified rebuilding timeframe and landings and associated revenues 
would likely decline in the long-term as the blacknose shark stock 
continues to decline.
    Alternative A2 would remove blacknose sharks from the SCS quota and 
create a blacknose shark-specific quota and a separate non-blacknose 
SCS quota, which would be comprised of finetooth, Atlantic sharpnose, 
and bonnethead sharks. The non-blacknose SCS quota would be the current 
SCS quota (454 mt dw) minus average annual landings of blacknose sharks 
(136,595 lb dw or 61.5 mt dw per year). This would result in an non-
blacknose SCS quota of 392.5 mt dw per year (454 mt dw-61.5 mt dw = 
392.5 mt dw). The blacknose shark quota would be a 78-percent reduction 
in current landings or 13.5 mt dw (29,762 lb dw per year) (61.5 mt dw x 
78 percent = 48 mt dw; 61.5 mt dw - 48 mt dw = 13.5 mt dw per year). 
This is equivalent to approximately 2,834 blacknose sharks per year 
assuming an average commercial shark fishery weight (excluding bycatch 
and recreational landings) of blacknose = 10.5 lb dw.
    Alternative A2 would have neutral ecological impacts on finetooth, 
Atlantic sharpnose, and bonnethead sharks as it would most likely not 
result in reduced landings of any of these species since the overall 
SCS quota would only be reduced by the average annual blacknose shark 
landings. However, although this alternative could reduce landings of 
blacknose sharks by 78 percent, because discards would continue as 
fishermen directed on non-blacknose SCS, overall mortality for 
blacknose sharks would still be above the commercial sector ACL of 
44,853.8 lb dw per year (7,094 blacknose sharks per year), even if the 
retention of blacknose sharks was prohibited. This would have negative 
ecological impacts for blacknose sharks as it would not allow them to 
rebuild within their allotted rebuilding time.
    NMFS anticipates that non-blacknose SCS landings would not decrease 
as the non-blacknose SCS quota would only be reduced by the average 
blacknose shark landings. Total gross revenues for non-blacknose SCS 
landings are anticipated to be the same for alternative A2 as under 
alternative A1 ($661,513). As such, social and economic impacts on 
directed and incidental shark fishermen for the non-blacknose SCS quota 
would be neutral under alternative A2 in the short term. However, the 
blacknose shark quota would be a 78-percent reduction based on average 
landings from 2004-2007. Total gross revenues for the blacknose shark 
landings for the entire fishery would decrease from $172,197 under 
alternative A1 to $37,500 under this alternative. Because directed 
permit holders are responsible for the majority of blacknose shark 
landings, it is anticipated that directed permit holders would 
experience the largest economic impacts under this alternative.
    NMFS does not prefer alternative A2. Specifically, under this 
alternative, discards of blacknose sharks would continue as fishermen 
directed on SCS other than blacknose shark. This would result in a 
higher overall mortality for blacknose sharks than what would be 
allowed under the rebuilding plan. In the long term, a decrease in 
revenues may be expected as the blacknose shark stock continues to 
decline resulting in reduced landings.

[[Page 36897]]

    Alternative A3 is similar to alternative A4 in that it would remove 
blacknose sharks from the SCS quota and create a blacknose shark quota 
and a separate non-blacknose SCS quota equal to 42.7 mt dw (94,115 lb 
dw), which would be comprised of finetooth, Atlantic sharpnose, and 
bonnethead sharks. The non-blacknose SCS quota equates to an 82-percent 
reduction from the average current landings of finetooth, Atlantic 
sharpnose, and bonnethead sharks from 2004 through 2007. The blacknose 
shark quota would be 16.6 mt dw (36,526 lb dw), which is the amount of 
blacknose sharks that would be harvested while the non-blacknose SCS 
quota is harvested assuming fishermen continue to direct on non-
blacknose SCS. Under this alternative, as with alternative A4, 
incidental fishermen would not be allowed to retain any blacknose 
sharks. Also, this alternative, as with alternative A4, assumes that 
directed fishermen would fish for non-blacknose SCS in a directed 
fashion until the non-blacknose SCS quota reached 80 percent. At that 
time, the entire SCS fishery, including blacknose sharks, would close, 
and all SCS would be discarded. The main difference between this 
alternative and alternative A4 is that this alternative assumes the 
gillnet fishery continues as it does now (alternative B1 as described 
below). Under this alternative, NMFS estimates that total mortality for 
blacknose sharks would be 43,601 lb dw, which is below the commercial 
sector ACL of 44,853.8 lb dw.
    Alternative A3 is anticipated to have positive ecological impacts 
for blacknose, Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and finetooth sharks as 
it would reduce landings by 73 percent for blacknose sharks and 82 
percent for non-blacknose SCS based on current landings. In addition, 
it would reduce discards by 74 percent for blacknose sharks but could 
increase discards by up to 62 percent for non-blacknose SCS based on 
current discards.
    Under alternative A3, total annual gross revenues for non-blacknose 
SCS for the entire fishery are anticipated to be $119,526. This is an 
82-percent reduction in gross revenues from the gross revenues expected 
under alternative A1 ($661,513). Since directed permit holders land 
approximately 97 percent of the non-blacknose SCS landings as explained 
in alternative A1, NMFS anticipates that directed permit holders would 
lose more in gross revenues from non-blacknose SCS landings compared to 
incidental permit holders. Total gross revenues for directed shark 
permit holders of non-blacknose SCS under alternative A3 would be 
$115,821, which is a loss of $525,185 in gross revenues or an 82-
percent reduction in gross revenues from the gross revenues expected 
under alternative A1 ($641,006). Total gross revenues for incidental 
shark permit holders of non-blacknose SCS under alternative A3 would be 
$3,705, which is a loss of $16,802 in gross revenues and an 82-percent 
reduction in gross revenues from the gross revenues expected under 
alternative A1 ($20,507).
    Under alternative A3, total annual gross revenues for the blacknose 
shark landings for the directed fishery would decrease from $172,197 
under the alternative A1 to $46,023, which is a loss of $126,174, or 73 
percent. Because incidental fishermen would not be able to retain 
blacknose sharks, they would lose an estimated $12,054 in gross 
revenues from blacknose shark landings. Given alternative A3 has a 
larger reduction in quota of non-blacknose SCS and would affect more 
directed and incidental permit holders compared to alternative A4, NMFS 
is not preferring alternative A3 at this time.
    Alternative A5 would close the entire SCS commercial shark fishery, 
prohibiting the landing of any SCS, including blacknose sharks. This 
alternative would have positive ecological impacts for all SCS species 
as it would prohibit landings of finetooth, Atlantic sharpnose, 
bonnethead, and blacknose sharks. On average, landings of finetooth, 
Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and blacknose sharks were 120,000 lb 
dw, 363,303 lb dw, 37,562 lb dw, and 136,595 lb dw, respectively. 
However, since shark fishermen would presumably continue to fish for 
LCS using BLL gear, discards of SCS could continue on BLL gear. 
Additionally, fishermen using gillnet gear in other fisheries would 
continue to use gillnets. As such, discards of SCS on gillnet gear 
would also continue.
    This alternative could also have positive ecological impacts for 
LCS. Since gillnets are the primary gear used to target SCS, except for 
strikenets, which are used to target blacktip sharks, presumably all 
directed shark gillnet fishing, with the exception of fishing with 
strikenets, would stop under alternative A5. If all directed shark 
gillnet fishing stopped under alternative A5, NMFS estimates that 
landings of LCS could decrease by approximately 102,171 lb dw (3 
percent) compared to current average landings of 3,170,155 lb dw from 
2004-2007; however, this decrease may be slightly less if blacktip 
sharks continue to be harvested with directed strikenet gear. 
Alternative A5 could also decrease LCS dead discards by 52,979 lb dw or 
15 percent compared to average annual discards of 359,129 lb dw from 
2003-2005.
    Under alternative A5, NMFS estimates there would be a loss of 
average annual gross revenues of $661,513 for non-blacknose SCS and 
$172,197 from blacknose shark landings for a total loss of $833,710 in 
annual gross revenues from SCS landings. Directed permit holders would 
lose $641,006 in average annual gross revenues from non-blacknose SCS 
landings and $160,143 in average annual gross revenues from blacknose 
shark landings for a total of $801,149 in average annual gross 
revenues. Incidental permit holders would lose $20,507 in average 
annual gross revenues from non-blacknose SCS landings and $12,054 in 
average annual gross revenues from blacknose shark landings for a total 
of $32,561 in average annual gross revenues under alternative A5. This 
alternative could also result in a decrease in average annual gross 
revenues of LCS of $107,280.
    While this alternative could reduce blacknose mortality below the 
commercial sector ACL of 44,853.8 lb dw, it would also completely 
eliminate the fishery for all other SCS species. This would severely 
curtail data collection of all SCS that could be used for future stock 
assessments and would have larger economic impacts on directed and 
incidental fishermen than any of the other alternatives. Thus, NMFS 
does not prefer this alternative at this time.

B. Commercial Gear Restrictions

    NMFS considered several alternatives for commercial gear 
restrictions ranging from no action to closing the gillnet fishery. 
Specifically, NMFS considered alternative B1--no action, maintain 
current gear regulations; alternative B2--close the gillnet fishery and 
remove gillnet gear from authorized gear type for commercial shark 
fishing; and alternative B3--close the gillnet fishery to commercial 
shark fishing from South Carolina south, including the Gulf of Mexico 
and Caribbean. Alternative B3 is the preferred alternative.
    Under alternative B3, NMFS would close the gillnet fishery to 
commercial shark fishing from South Carolina south, including the Gulf 
of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. This alternative would eliminate the 
predominant gear type used to harvest blacknose sharks in the South 
Atlantic region and would help rebuild the blacknose shark stock by 
reducing gillnet mortality throughout their habitat range. Blacknose 
sharks are commonly found from North Carolina to Brazil, including the 
Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. This alternative would

[[Page 36898]]

also help mitigate impacts of managing the smooth dogfish fishery (see 
alternatives F2 and F3), which uses gillnet gear predominately from 
North Carolina north. This alternative is expected to have a positive 
ecological impact for the overfished blacknose shark population and for 
the SCS fishery as a whole by reducing landings from the primary gear 
used to target SCS. This prohibition is expected to decrease the total 
landings per year of directed and incidental shark permit holders for 
all SCS from 659,459 lb dw per year to 158,240 lb dw per year. This is 
a 76 percent reduction. Blacknose sharks are not reported as landed 
with gillnets north of South Carolina and NMFS does not expect 
prohibiting gillnets from South Carolina south to change this. The 
directed blacknose shark landings are anticipated to be reduced from 
127,033 lb dw per year to 55,858 lb dw per year, or a 44 percent 
reduction in landings. The incidental blacknose shark landings would 
drop from 9,562 lb dw per year to 9,262 lb dw per year, or a 3 percent 
reduction in landings. Under this alternative, NMFS assumes that all 
directed shark gillnet effort would cease. However, it is estimated 
that blacknose sharks would still be caught and discarded incidentally 
by fishermen targeting other species (i.e., Spanish mackerel) using 
gillnet gear. NMFS estimates that 158.6 blacknose sharks per year 
(2,284 lb dw per year) would be discarded in these fisheries.
    The ecological impacts of alternative B3 on the LCS and smooth 
dogfish fishery are expected to be minimal since most smooth dogfish 
landings occur from North Carolina north and the majority of LCS 
landings occur with BLL gear. With the prohibition of gillnets from 
South Carolina south, total landings per year of LCS are anticipated to 
decrease by 101,409 lb dw per year (3 percent of the fishery).
    This alternative could have positive ecological impacts on 
protected species. From 2004-2007, a total of 14 loggerhead and 
leatherback sea turtles (2 discarded dead) were caught in gillnets. 
Also, interaction with north Atlantic right whales and dolphin species 
could occur in shark gillnet fishing areas. In 2006, a right whale was 
found dead in Florida and available evidence suggests that the 
entanglement and injuries of the whale by gillnet gear eventually led 
to the death of the animal. It is unknown if the gillnet gear was from 
the shark fishery, but the removal of gillnets as an authorized gear 
type for sharks would reduce interactions with protected species. Some 
protected shark species that are impacted by gillnets are the sand 
tiger, sandbar, angel, and dusky sharks. All of these protected species 
populations would benefit from the elimination of gillnet gear.
    This alternative would have a negative social and economic impact 
on Federally permitted directed and incidental fishermen. The gillnet 
fishery from South Carolina south accounts for 44 percent of the total 
landings of SCS by fishermen with directed permits, and 26 percent of 
SCS landings by fishermen with incidental permits. On average, from 
South Carolina south, directed shark permit holders land 283,462 lb dw 
($358,261) of SCS with gillnet gear. Thus, under this alternative, 
directed shark fishermen could lose approximately $358,261 of their 
current $807,792 in annual gross revenues. Similarly, on average, 
incidental shark permit holders land 5,381 lb dw ($6,807) of SCS with 
gillnet gear from South Carolina south. This alternative would cause 
$6,807 in lost SCS annual gross revenues for incidental shark 
fishermen. Combined, directed and incidental shark fishermen would lose 
$365,068 from their current annual gross revenues of $833,634.
    This alternative would have minor social and economic impacts on 
the LCS fishery. The directed shark permit holders are estimated to 
lose 101,132 lb dw per year of LCS landings under alternative B3. This 
alternative could equate to $106,189 in lost LCS revenues for directed 
shark fishermen. On average, incidental shark permit holders are 
estimated to lose 2,761 lb dw of LCS landings. This alternative could 
equate to $290 in lost LCS revenues for incidental shark permit 
holders. This represents a 3 percent reduction in LCS annual gross 
revenues for the total LCS fishery.
    This alternative is not expected to have social and economic 
impacts on the smooth dogfish fishery. This species is primarily caught 
commercially in gillnet gear from North Carolina north. As such, NMFS 
does not expect the prohibition of gillnet gear in areas south of North 
Carolina to impact smooth dogfish fishermen.
    The preferred alternative, B3, reduces fishing effort on blacknose 
sharks by removing gillnet gear from the areas where blacknose sharks 
interact with gillnet gear. This is anticipated to reduce blacknose 
shark landings by 71,475 lb dw per year. This alternative also allows 
gillnet gear in the areas where the majority of the smooth dogfish are 
landed. By allowing gillnet gear in North Carolina and north, NMFS is 
mitigating impacts on the smooth dogfish fishery while reducing 
mortality on blacknose sharks. The removal of gillnet gear from South 
Carolina south could also have positive ecological impacts to non-
blacknose SCS by reducing their landings by an estimated 217,368 lb dw. 
However, this alternative could also have significant social and 
economic impacts by affecting approximately 37 directed and 6 
incidental SCS and LCS permit holders. It will also reduce SCS and LCS 
revenues for directed permit holders by $464,450 and SCS and LCS 
revenues for incidental permit holders by $7,097. This alternative is 
also anticipated to have positive ecological impacts on protected 
resources. Given the need to reduce blacknose shark mortality to 
rebuild the stock, the fact that gillnet gear is the predominate gear 
used in the Atlantic shark fisheries to harvest blacknose sharks, the 
fact that this would have minimal impact on smooth dogfish fishermen, 
and the continuing bycatch concerns regarding this gear, particularly 
of protected species, NMFS is preferring alternative B3 at this time.
    Under alternative B1, the no action alternative, NMFS would 
maintain BLL, rod and reel, bandit, and gillnet gear as authorized 
gears in the Atlantic shark fishery and would maintain all the other 
gear requirements such as corrodible hooks for BLL fishermen and net 
checks for gillnet fishermen. Since there would be no change to the 
gear restrictions under alternative B1, the ecological impacts for 
Atlantic sharpnose, bonnethead, and finetooth sharks would be neutral 
as these species were not determined to be overfished and overfishing 
is not occurring. Additionally, any current ecological impacts on LCS 
and protected resources would continue. However, this no action 
alternative could have negative ecological impacts on blacknose sharks 
because NMFS would not be able to achieve the commercial sector ACL of 
44,853.8 lb dw per year (7,094 blacknose sharks per year).
    No negative social or economic impacts would be anticipated under 
alternative B1. Currently, directed and incidental SCS fishermen retain 
a total annual gross revenues of $833,634, while the directed and 
incidental LCS fishermen have a larger annual gross revenues at 
$3,328,663. While this alternative would have the fewest socio-economic 
impacts compared to alternatives B2 and B3, it would not aid in 
achieving the reduction needed to rebuild blacknose sharks, consistent 
with the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
    Under alternative B2, NMFS would remove gillnet gear as an 
authorized gear type for commercial shark fishing, which would close 
the shark gillnet fishery. Shark LAP holders could

[[Page 36899]]

continue to use other commercially-authorized gears such as BLL, rod 
and reel, handline, or bandit gear. This alternative would have 
positive ecological impacts for SCS, LCS, and smooth dogfish as it 
would reduce commercial landings and decrease bycatch rates of both 
target and non-target species, including protected resources. Since 
gillnets are the dominant gear type used to target SCS, this 
restriction would have a large impact on the total landings per year. 
The directed shark permit holders have, on average, total landings of 
all SCS of 639,015 lb dw per year with all gear types. Of these, 
289,546 lb dw are made with gillnet gear. If gillnets were prohibited, 
the average total landings could drop 45 percent to 349,469 lb dw per 
year (639,015--289,546 = 349,469 lb dw per year). Shark landings by 
incidental permit holders would decline 5 percent from 20,443 lb dw per 
year to 19,497 lb dw per year. Given that commercial blacknose landings 
in gillnets were 71,827 lb dw per year of the total 136,595 lb dw 
landings, removing gillnets from the shark commercial landings would 
help achieve the 78-percent reduction needed to rebuild blacknose 
sharks. Removing gillnet gear could reduce blacknose shark landings by 
an estimated 53 percent.
    As described above under alternative B3, with the removal of 
gillnet gear, NMFS assumes that all directed shark gillnet fishing 
effort would cease. However, blacknose sharks would still be caught and 
discarded by fishermen targeting other species (i.e., mackerel) and 
using gillnet gear. NMFS estimates that 158.6 blacknose sharks or 2,248 
lb dw per year would be discarded incidentally by these other 
fisheries.
    While LCS are also caught in gillnet gear, as described in 
alternative B3, the ecological impacts would be minimal for the LCS 
fishery since bottom longlines are the primary gear type used in the 
LCS fishery. However, this alternative could have a significant impact 
on the smooth dogfish fishery because gillnets are the primary gear 
type used in this fishery. This species is not currently managed under 
a Federal fishery management plan, and a stock assessment has not been 
conducted for this species. If alternative F2, adding smooth dogfish 
under NMFS management, is implemented in conjunction with this 
alternative, then Federal permit holders would not be allowed to land 
smooth dogfish sharks using gillnet gear. Prohibiting this gear would 
result in reduced smooth dogfish landings. The ecological impacts of 
this are unknown since a stock assessment has not been conducted for 
this species.
    This alternative could have a significant negative social and 
economic impact, and would have a considerable impact on the total 
landings per year of SCS. On average, directed shark permit holders 
landed 289,546 lb dw of SCS with gillnet gear. Alternative B2 would 
equate to approximately $365,955 in lost total SCS annual gross 
revenues for directed shark fishermen. On average, incidental shark 
permit holders landed 9,465 lb dw of SCS with gillnet gear per year. 
This alternative would equate to approximately $11,973 in lost SCS 
revenues for incidental shark fishermen. Overall, this represents a 45-
percent reduction in SCS revenues for directed shark fishermen and a 
46-percent reduction in SCS revenues for incidental shark fishermen 
compared to alternative B1. This alternative would have minimal 
negative social and economic impacts on the LCS fishery as most LCS are 
landed with BLL gear.
    Gillnets are also the primary gear type used to catch smooth 
dogfish. As such, removal of this gear type in alternative B2 in 
combination with adding smooth dogfish under NMFS management 
(alternative F2) could have large impacts on the smooth dogfish 
fishery. Because the smooth dogfish fishery is not Federally managed 
and there are no permitting or reporting requirements, NMFS cannot 
estimate the specific impact of closing this fishery. Using vessel trip 
report (VTR) data (primarily a northeast reporting system), an average 
of 213 vessels reported smooth dogfish landings per year between 2004 
and 2007. Within the Coastal Fisheries Logbooks data (primarily a 
southeast reporting system), an average of 10 vessels reported smooth 
dogfish landings per year between 2004 and 2007. As such, NMFS 
estimates approximately 223 vessels catch and land smooth dogfish. 
However, as fishermen are currently not required to have a permit to 
retain smooth dogfish, this could be an underestimate. The landings 
data indicate that total landings from 1998-2007 averaged 950,859 lb dw 
per year, which equates to total annual gross revenues of approximately 
$357,286. This total annual gross revenue, which could be an 
underestimate, would be lost if NMFS prefers both alternative B2 and 
alternative F2.
    Given the potential large negative social and economic impacts of 
alternative B2 to the SCS and LCS fisheries, and given the potentially 
large impacts to the smooth dogfish fishery, NMFS does not prefer this 
alternative at this time.

C. Pelagic Shark Commercial Effort Controls

    NMFS also considered several alternatives to end overfishing of 
shortfin mako sharks ranging from no action to a minimum size to 
establishing a species-specific quota. Specifically, the alternatives 
considered are: alternative C1--no action, keep shortfin mako sharks in 
the pelagic shark species complex and maintain the quota; alternative 
C2--remove shortfin mako sharks from pelagic shark species quota and 
establish a shortfin mako quota; alternative C3--remove shortfin mako 
sharks from pelagic shark species quota and place this species on the 
prohibited shark species list; alternative C4 --establish a commercial 
size limit for shortfin mako sharks; alternative C5--take action at the 
international level to end overfishing of shortfin mako sharks; and 
alternative C6--promote the release of shortfin mako sharks brought to 
fishing vessels alive. Alternative C4 includes two sub-alternatives: 
alternative C4a--establish a minimum size limit for shortfin makos that 
is based on the size at which 50 percent of female shortfin mako sharks 
reach sexual maturity or 108 inches FL (274 cm FL) and alternative 
C4b--establish a minimum size limit for shortfin makos that is based on 
the size at which 50 percent of male shortfin mako sharks reach sexual 
maturity or 73 inches FL (185.4 cm FL). Alternatives C5 and C6 are the 
preferred alternatives.
    Under alternative C5, which is one of the preferred alternatives, 
NMFS would take action under Section 304(i) of the Magnuson-Stevens 
Act. Section 304(i) provides for the Secretary to take immediate action 
to end overfishing at the international level and to develop both 
domestic and international recommendations for conservation and 
management. ICCAT assumes three shortfin mako shark stocks for 
assessment purposes: northern and southern Atlantic stocks, separated 
at 5[deg] N latitude, and a Mediterranean stock. Based on the 2008 SCRS 
stock assessment on the North Atlantic shortfin mako stock, NMFS 
determined domestically that the North Atlantic stock of shortfin mako 
sharks is experiencing overfishing and approaching an overfished 
status.
    Most shortfin mako shark landings are attributable to the 
recreational fishery. Recreational catches peaked in 1985 at about 
80,000 fish, and ranged from less than 1,400 fish to over 31,000 fish 
in the remaining years. Shortfin mako sharks are also caught 
incidentally in the PLL fishery; fishermen generally do not target 
shortfin mako sharks in the

[[Page 36900]]

United States where shortfin mako sharks are caught incidentally in 
tuna and swordfish fisheries. Shortfin mako shark commercial landings 
have not exceeded 11,000 fish according to available estimates. Pelagic 
longline discards of shortfin mako sharks are generally negligible 
since the meat of this species is highly valued. Total commercial and 
recreational catches ranged from about 5,600 fish in 1998 to almost 
80,000 fish in 1985, when recreational catches peaked.
    U.S. commercial harvest of Atlantic shortfin mako sharks has 
historically been less than ten percent of the recorded total 
international landings, based on ICCAT data from 1997 through 2007. 
Because of the small U.S. contribution to Atlantic shortfin mako shark 
mortality, domestic reductions on shortfin mako shark mortality would 
not end overfishing of the entire North Atlantic stock. For instance, 
there are domestic regulations in place for shortfin mako sharks, such 
as a commercial quota, incidental shark trip limits, a fins-attached 
requirement, and recreational size and bag limits. However, 
implementing additional regulations in the United States only would not 
end overfishing of shortfin mako sharks. Therefore, NMFS believes that 
ending overfishing and preventing an overfished status would be better 
accomplished through the procedures set forth in Section 304(i) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act. The United States would continue to manage its 
relative impact on shortfin mako domestically by maintaining existing 
quota and promoting live release in concert with Alternative C6, while 
taking immediate action at the international level to end overfishing. 
It would develop international recommendations and present them to 
international fisheries organizations, such as ICCAT, where other 
countries that have large takes of shortfin mako sharks could 
participate in shortfin mako shark mortality reductions. These 
recommendations would also be provided to Congress to raise its 
awareness of the need for international action. In the short term, this 
alternative would not result in any negative economic or social impacts 
on commercial fishermen as it would not restrict the retention of 
shortfin mako sharks, nor alter the pelagic shark quota. While this 
alternative would have neutral ecological impacts for shortfin mako 
sharks in the short term, any management recommendations to reduce 
mortality of shortfin mako sharks could have positive ecological 
impacts on shortfin mako sharks in the long term. The long term 
socioeconomic impacts cannot be estimated without knowing the potential 
management recommendations. NMFS expects in the long term that 
alternative C5 would render larger benefits to the species because 
other nations would help reduce overall mortality of the species.
    Under Alternative C6, the second preferred alternative in this 
section, NMFS would promote the live release of shortfin mako sharks in 
the commercial shark fishery. This alternative could have slight 
positive or neutral ecological benefits for shortfin mako sharks 
because 69 percent are brought to the vessel alive and could be 
released. This action does not restrict commercial harvest and landing 
of shortfin mako sharks that are alive at haulback, and therefore, 
would have no adverse social or economic impacts. If promoting live 
release is successful, it could reduce landings and dead discards of 
shortfin mako. Because this alternative could have positive ecological 
impacts with minimal social and economic impacts, NMFS is preferring 
this alternative at this time.
    Alternative C1 is the no action alternative and would maintain the 
existing regulations for shortfin mako sharks. The current commercial 
quota for common thresher, oceanic whitetip, and shortfin mako sharks 
is 488 mt dw. This alternative would likely maintain fishing mortality 
of shortfin mako sharks at current levels, and therefore, could have 
negative ecological impacts based on the 2008 ICCAT stock assessment. 
From 2