Browse: Departments Dates Agencies
Docket ID: [Docket No. 030721180-3316-02; I.D. 010903D]
RIN ID: RIN 0648-AQ95
SUBJECT CATEGORY: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures
The fishery opening for large coastal sharks (LCS) in the North Atlantic region is effective January 1, 2004, through 11:30 p.m., local time, April 15, 2004, and the closure is effective 11:30 p.m., local time, April 15, 2004, through June 30, 2004. The fishery opening for LCS in the South Atlantic region is effective January 1, 2004, through 11:30 p.m., local time, February 15, 2004, and the closure is effective 11:30 p.m., local time, February 15, 2004, through June 30, 2004. The fishery opening for LCS in the Gulf of Mexico region is effective January 1, 2004, through 11:30 p.m., local time, February 29, 2004, and the closure is effective 11:30 p.m., local time, February 29, 2004, through June 30, 2004. The fishery opening for small coastal sharks (SCS) in all regions, pelagic sharks, blue sharks, and porbeagle sharks is effective January 1, 2004, through June 30, 2004, unless otherwise modified or superseded through publication of a closure notification in the Federal Register.
DOCUMENT SUMMARY: This final rule is necessary to ensure that shark regulations are based on the results of the 2002 stock assessments for large coastal sharks (LCS) and small coastal sharks (SCS). The results of these stock assessments indicate that the LCS complex continues to be overfished, and overfishing is occurring; that sandbar sharks are not overfished, but overfishing is occurring; that blacktip sharks are rebuilt and healthy; that the SCS complex is healthy; and that finetooth sharks are not overfished, but overfishing is occurring. Based on these results, NMFS is revising the rebuilding timeframe for LCS to 26 years from 2004, changing some of the commercial regulations, changing some of the recreational regulations, implementing measures to reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality including a time/area closure, removing the deepwater/other sharks from the management unit, establishing criteria regarding adding or removing sharks from the prohibited species group, and establishing a display permit for fishermen who wish to harvest highly migratory species (HMS) for public display. NMFS also updates essential fish habitat (EFH) identifications for sandbar, blacktip, finetooth, dusky, and nurse sharks. NMFS also notifies eligible participants of the opening and closing dates for the Atlantic large coastal, small coastal, and pelagic shark fishing seasons.
SUMMARY: Commerce Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
NMFS published a Notice of Intent to conduct an EIS and draft Amendment 1 to the HMS FMP on November 15, 2003 (67 FR 69180). On January 27, 2003, NMFS announced the availability of an Issues and Option paper and scheduled seven scoping meetings (68 FR 3853). On August 1, 2003, NMFS published the proposed rule regarding Amendment 1 (68 FR 45196) and announced the availability of the Draft EIS (68 FR 45237). NMFS held six public hearings and one Advisory Panel meeting during the public comment period, which was extended to October 3, 2003, due to Hurricane Isabel (68 FR 47904, August 12, 2003; 68 FR 51560, August 27, 2003; 68 FR 54885, September 19, 2003). Additionally, NMFS attended several Fishery Management Council meetings regarding Amendment 1 and its proposed rule.
Information regarding the management history of Atlantic sharks, Exempted Fishing Permits (EFP), and EFH and the alternatives considered in Amendment 1 was provided in the preamble of the proposed rule and is not repeated here. Additional information can be found in the Final Amendment 1 available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). A description of the changes to the proposed rule can be found after the response to comments, followed by information on the available quota and the length of the first 2004 fishing season.
Most of the measures in this rule, such as the requirement to carry
and use linecutters and dipnets, the change in authorized gear in the
recreational fishery, and the removal of deepwater and other sharks
from the management unit, will be effective on February 1, 2004.
However, some of the management measures that relieve restrictions,
such as the changes to the commercial quotas (including the quota level
for large coastal sharks (LCS), small coastal sharks (SCS), and
establishment of regional quotas (Sec. 635.27(b))), changes to the
recreational bag and size limit (Sec. Sec. 635.22(c) and 635.20(e)),
and changes to the commercial minimum size (Sec. 635.20(e)), will be
effective on December 30, 2003. Additionally, in order to give
fishermen time to adjust to the new regulations and, if necessary,
revise their business plans, some of the final measures will be
implemented after February 1, 2004. For instance, the MidAtlantic
shark closure off of North Carolina (Sec. 635.21(d)(1)) and the
trimester seasons for the commercial fisheries (Sec. 635.27(b)(1)(i))
will be effective on January 1, 2005. Furthermore, the requirements of
installing and activating a vessel monitoring system (VMS) for bottom
longline and gillnet vessels (Sec. 635.69(a)(2) and (3)) and
possessing and using a dehooking device (Sec. 635.21(d)(3)(ii)) are delayed indefinitely pending type approval
[[Page 74747]]
notifications to be published at a later date in the Federal Register. Response to Comments
A number of individuals and groups provided both written and verbal comments during the public comment period. The comments are summarized below together with NMFS' responses. Additionally, several questions were raised during the waiting period for the FEIS. While not required, NMFS has, along with the other comments below, provided further clarification to respond to some of the questions raised. All comments are grouped in a layout similar to the layout of the preamble of the proposed rule.
Comment 1: The proposed rebuilding time frame is illegal and runs counter to the precautionary approach. The LCS complex can and must be rebuilt within the 10year time limit envisioned by Congress.
Response: The National Standard 1 Guidelines, 50 CFR Sec. 600.310, specify two strategies for determining the rebuilding time frame. First, if a stock can rebuild in less than 10 years, the rebuilding time frame can be no longer than 10 years. Second, if a stock will take 10 years or more to rebuild, the rebuilding time frame can be as long as the time to rebuild with no fishing plus a mean generation time. The HMS FMP specifies that, because of their slow growth and low reproductive potential, a 70percent probability should be used for rebuilding the stock for sharks. The HMS FMP states that a 70percent probability should be used as a guide to ensure that the intended results of management actions are realized and to assess the relative merits of one rebuilding time frame over another (see the HMS FMP at 3 61 and 3289). The HMS FMP also uses a low probability of a negative outcome (less than 20percent probability) as a guide for evaluating management measures.
Under the 70percent probability, the amount of time required for rebuilding under no fishing is 10 years or greater. Thus, the second rebuilding strategy, discussed above, would apply. After taking into account the biology of the stocks, the results of the 2002 LCS stock assessment, the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Act and the National Standard Guidelines, the criteria in the HMS FMP, and the status of the fishing communities that rely on economic activities involving the capture of these fish, NMFS does not believe that a 10 year rebuilding period is appropriate for the LCS complex. The 26year rebuilding period established in Amendment 1 is consistent with the MagnusonStevens Act, the National Standard Guidelines at 50 CFR part 600, subpart D, and the HMS FMP.
Comment 2: If prohibiting fishing for 10 years does not quite give a 70percent chance of rebuilding the LCS complex to MSY, then prohibit fishing for 20 years.
Response: As discussed above, the HMS FMP establishes a 70percent probability as a guide for shark management measures. Eliminating fishing would not achieve a 70percent probability of rebuilding within 10 years; therefore, NMFS has established a rebuilding period of 11 years (no fishing period) plus one mean generation time. Prohibiting shark fishing for 20 years would give an 86percent chance of rebuilding the LCS complex to maximum sustainable yield (MSY). However, prohibiting shark fishing for 20 years is not required by the Magnuson Stevens Act, which allows NMFS to consider a number of factors when determining the rebuilding time frame, including impacts on fishing communities. If NMFS were to prohibit fishing for 20 years, a number of businesses including fishermen, processors, and suppliers, could be forced out of business and a number of communities, including recreational fishing communities, would be adversely affected. Additionally, prohibiting fishing for 20 years would eliminate the fisherydependent data that is needed to accurately assess the status of the stocks. Given these impacts, the objectives of the HMS FMP and Amendment 1, the requirements of the MagnusonStevens Act and other domestic law, and the results of the 2002 large and small coastal shark stock assessments, NMFS does not believe that shark fishing should be prohibited for 20 years.
Comment 3: Our confidence in the 70percent chance to rebuild figure is low given the number of uncertainties and deficiencies in the plan particularly the fact that the quota is not reduced by 50 percent, the time/area closures to protect juveniles will not be implemented immediately, there is no size limit in place, and NMFS has not accounted for all sources of mortality such as state landings.
Response: While some uncertainty is inherent in developing any rebuilding plan, based on the best available scientific information, NMFS is confident that the combination of management measures in Amendment 1 should have a 70percent chance of rebuilding the LCS complex. The 2002 LCS stock assessment found that reducing the catches by 50 percent would have, on average, a 67percent chance of rebuilding LCS in 30 years. While the rebuilding time frame in the amendment is shorter than 30 years and the commercial quota is reduced by 45 percent, not 50 percent, NMFS is implementing a number of other management measures that should reduce fishing mortality and increase the reproductive potential of several stocks in the LCS complex. For example, the time/area closure will protect juvenile sharks as recommended by the 2002 LCS stock assessment. Numerous studies have shown that protecting this life stage provides the greatest benefit to increasing the population size. Thus, the time/area closure will be more effective at protecting juvenile sharks and rebuilding the population than a commercial minimum size because a minimum size would force commercial fishermen to discard undersized sharks, which would not be counted against the commercial trip limit. This could result in more sharks being caught and potentially discarded. In the longterm, if dead discards were to increase as a result of a minimum size, then the commercial and recreational portions of the optimum yield would decrease and both the commercial quota level and recreational retention limit could be reduced. A minimum size in the recreational fishery does not raise the same concerns because the recreational fishery is believed to have low postrelease mortality rates and has already been limited to one shark per trip, not including the exception for Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks.
NMFS is also implementing other management measures, such as the requirement for commercial fishermen to carry and use line cutters and dehooking devices, that should minimize the mortality of sharks that are caught and released. Together, these management measures, along with accounting for all sources of fishing mortality (including both Federal and State commercial landings, dead discards, and recreational catches), increasing and improving education and outreach, and increasing compliance with the recreational regulations, should give the LCS complex a 70percent chance of rebuilding within the rebuilding time frame.
An additional significant aspect of the HMS FMP is the requirement
that NMFS conduct periodic stock assessments for species or species
groups. If new information indicates that the LCS complex is not likely
to be rebuilt within the required time frame, NMFS can adjust management measures, as necessary, to ensure the
[[Page 74748]]
70percent probability of rebuilding the stock over the course of the
26year rebuilding period. Additionally, as more speciesspecific
information becomes available, NMFS will attempt to conduct species
specific assessments and evaluate possible management measures that
could focus on those species that are the most vulnerable or that need the most protection.
Comment 4: In considering the management options and probability of rebuilding sharks, having an additional set of alternatives with a higher probability of success would have been useful for comparison purposes. As it stands, the most conservative alternatives are the ones chosen as the preferred alternatives and they may be insufficient to meet the management goals. As such, the preferred alternatives in the amendment should be considered the absolute minimum necessary to manage sharks consistent with the advice of the 2002 stock assessments.
Response: As required under NEPA, NMFS considered a wide range of alternatives designed to rebuild LCS. The range of alternatives included those that could be considered riskprone (e.g., removing the retention and/or size limits in the recreational fishery) to risk averse (e.g., allowing no retention in the recreational fishery). From all the alternatives considered, NMFS selected a group of alternatives that, consistent with the MagnusonStevens Act, is likely to rebuild the LCS complex within the revised rebuilding time frame while allowing for a viable shark fishery. If warranted based on the results of future stock assessments, NMFS can adjust the commercial quota or other management measures to ensure the 70percent probability of rebuilding the stock over the course of the 26year rebuilding period.
Comment 5: The proposed rebuilding time frame is the maximum allowed under the National Standard guidelines and is set using the entire complex rather than considering the biology of each individual species. We encourage NMFS to consider stratifying the time frame by considering the biology for individual species.
Response: NMFS would like to move toward more speciesspecific management in the future and will do so if fishermen can demonstrate a better ability to target and/or avoid certain species of sharks, speciesidentification among commercial and recreational fishermen and commercial dealers improves, and enough scientific data are collected that allows for more speciesspecific stock assessments. Thus, NMFS will consider revising the basis for calculating the commercial quota and the classification scheme to consider a more speciesspecific approach to management when sufficient data are available to do so effectively.
Comment 6: The rebuilding time frame should be calculated from the time the fishery was declared overfished, in this case 1999. Restarting the clock based on new assessment information is not required by the MagnusonStevens Act.
Response: NMFS had originally finalized a rebuilding plan in the 1999 HMS FMP that was designed to rebuild ridgeback LCS in 39 years and nonridgeback LCS in 30 years. This rebuilding plan was based on the projections from the 1998 LCS stock assessment. Based on a peer review of that stock assessment, NMFS determined that the projections from that stock assessment should not be used as the basis for management decisions. For this reason and as a result of the change in status of the two primary LCS species in the fishery, NMFS determined it was necessary to revise the rebuilding plan. Under National Standard 1, a rebuilding plan begins when the first measures to rebuild the stock are implemented. NMFS notes that under this revised rebuilding plan, the LCS complex will be rebuilt by 2030, which coincides with the time period projected for rebuilding nonridgeback LCS sharks under the 1999 HMS FMP (2029) and is less than the 1999 HMS FMP rebuilding time period projected for ridgeback LCS sharks (2038).
Comment 7: Applying a 70percent probability to the setting of a time frame does nothing to enhance conservation and increases risk to the sharks. Choosing the 27year time frame over a 10year time frame is, at best, conservation neutral because the management measures, at least for 2004, are the same regardless of the rebuilding end date. At worst, choosing the longer time frame is riskier because it allows shark stocks to linger longer at lower biomass levels and could allow for inappropriate increases in fishing effort in future years before the complex is rebuilt.
Response: The 70percent probability of achieving the rebuilding target will enhance conservation, reduce risk, and facilitate rebuilding of LCS. NMFS disagrees that a 10year time frame would be consistent with the same management measures applied under the revised 26year time frame. In the HMS FMP, NMFS decided to use a higher probability standard for sharks because the biology of sharks is different than other HMS and fish in that they take a number of years to mature, have few pups per brood, and generally only reproduce every other or every three years. This, combined with the fact that they are migratory and that some of their prey species are overfished, has led to the determination that a higher level of certainty is required when setting management actions for sharks. Under a 10year rebuilding time frame, even with a closure of the fishery, NMFS still would not reach a 70percent probability of rebuilding the LCS complex.
Comment 8: Probabilities of success should be applied only once a rebuilding time frame is set. The HMS FMP, other FMPs, and courts have all noted that management measures must have at least a 50percent chance of success. The 2002 LCS stock assessment found that a 50 percent reduction in catch has a 50percent chance of rebuilding the LCS complex within 10 years. Thus, the plan meets the minimum probability of success. Ironically, NMFS does not apply the 70percent guide to the selected time frame, noting instead that 64 percent is close enough.
Response: By applying probabilities of success only once a
rebuilding time frame is set, NMFS would have no basis for determining
whether or not a stock could likely rebuild in less than 10 years or
more than 10 years. This could result in unrealistic rebuilding time
frames that could be so short as to leave no option other than closing
the fishery or that could be so long as to never result in rebuilding
the stock. Instead, NMFS uses the probability of success both in
setting the rebuilding time frame and in selecting all the alternatives
to ensure that, taken together, the suite of alternatives will meet the
probability standard. Thus, in Amendment 1, while reducing the overall
catch by 45 percent does not give a 70percent probability of success,
the combination of catch reductions with other management actions that
will likely reduce mortality of released catch or protect juvenile sharks does have a 70percent probability of success.
2. Commercial Management Measures
Comment 1: NMFS received a range of comments regarding the proposed
classification. Comments received included: It is easier to comply with
one closure date; violators can take advantage of two closure dates. We
support the preferred alternative because it will simplify the
regulations and reduce regulatory discards. We agree that species
specific quotas are not reasonable now and therefore support [[Page 74749]]
the reaggregating the LCS complex; however, NMFS should not abandon
the goal of speciesspecific management. Because fishermen can actively
target sandbar and blacktip sharks, we prefer the alternative that
allows for speciesspecific shark groupings or, alternatively, the
ridgeback/nonridgeback species groupings. The stock assessment
recommended that every effort be made to manage the LCS fishery on a
species by species basis; thus, we support LCS groupings with different closure dates possible.
Response: NMFS considered five different LCS classifications in developing the proposed and final rule. The aggregate LCS
classification with one closure date is preferred because, in
combination with the other preferred alternatives, it is (1) expected
to maintain historic fishing practices (since 1993) and food
availability in the market place, (2) expected to reduce burden on
fishermen for sorting, (3) expected to decrease, or at least not
increase, the number of protected resource interactions; and (4) not
expected to increase regulatory discards. During this rulemaking
process NMFS heard that many fishery participants cannot accurately
identify or effectively target individual shark species. As such, NMFS
does not believe that a speciesbased classification is warranted at
this time, but will reconsider this issue when the ability to identify and target shark species improves.
Comment 2: The preferred alternative is the same classification that was in place from 1993 through 2002 but is not consistent with the rebuilt status of sandbar and blacktip shark or the economic needs of shark fishermen.
Response: The final action for LCS classification (i.e., aggregate LCS, one closure date) seeks to minimize bycatch (i.e., regulatory discards) of both rebuilt and overfished species of LCS, which would otherwise occur under separate closure dates or partial closures of a mixed fishery. While sandbar and blacktip sharks are no longer overfished and, in the case of blacktip sharks, may be able to withstand an increase in harvest, NMFS also needs to rebuild overfished LCS. As noted above, speciesspecific management is not feasible at this time. This final action allows fishermen the opportunity to catch the entire quota without decreasing efficiency (i.e., increased time to sort catch, increased time at sea to make up for lost catch resulting from regulatory discards, etc.), thus, maximizing economic benefits as compared with the other classification alternatives considered.
Comment 3: NMFS should increase research, survey, and monitoring efforts to acquire the critical information on individual life histories, ecological requirements, and stock conditions to enable more speciesspecific management. NMFS should develop a plan of action for moving towards speciesspecific management in the future.
Response: NMFS is supportive of increasing scientific research, surveys, and monitoring efforts of shark populations, provided that funding is available to do so. Currently, NMFS funds a number of shark focused research programs including, but not limited to: (1) Cooperative shark research (i.e., between Southeast Fisheries Science Center and Mote Marine Laboratory), (2) reducing blue shark bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries, (3) delineation of winter nursery grounds, migratory patterns, and critical habitat of juvenile sandbar sharks in the western Atlantic Ocean, and (4) various observer programs in the shark fishery. NMFS will review speciesspecific information and incorporate such information into stock assessments, as appropriate, as it becomes available and intends to pursue workshops to improve species identification by fishermen and dealers in the future. As such, NMFS may consider implementation of speciesbased LCS classifications when the ability to accurately identify and effectively target shark species improves.
Comment 4: National Standard 1 requires NMFS to adopt alternatives that result in the lowest quotas for vulnerable and overfished species and minimize bycatch to the greatest extent possible. Therefore, NMFS should adopt the alternative that aggregates LCS and closes the fishery when the quota for the most vulnerable species is meet.
Response: Of the LCS classification alternatives considered, the LCS classification final action best complies with National Standard 1 because it, in combination with the final action for the quota basis, prevents overfishing and facilitates rebuilding of LCS while achieving optimum yield on a continuous basis from the fishery. Additionally, the selected alternative is expected to decrease, or at least not increase, the number of protected resource interactions and not expected to increase regulatory discards, which is consistent with National Standard 9. Closing the fishery when the quota for the most vulnerable species is met is not a viable alternative at this time because to date there is limited data available on individual LCS species beyond that of sandbar and blacktip. Without speciesspecific assessments, it is difficult to say which LCS species have highest vulnerability or even what the quota should be for any individual species. NMFS may consider this alternative as more information becomes available in the future. B. Shark Quota Administration
Comment 1: NMFS received a range of comments regarding the combination of regional quotas and trimester seasons (i.e., three four month periods). Comments included: We support the proposed administration of regional and trimester seasons. We cannot support the proposed administration of regional and trimester seasons. Regional and trimester seasons will provide for more flexible management and improve quotas as a management tool. The regional quotas and trimester seasons will force vessels down to Florida for the January opening and will force them to fish for a shorter amount of time.
Response: NMFS considered three separate alternatives regarding seasons and two alternatives pertaining to regional quotas. NMFS is implementing trimester seasons with regional quotas because this combination will (1) aggregate the majority of shark pupping into one fishing season (i.e., second trimester) as opposed to divide it into two or more seasons, which is possible with either the semiannual or quarterly season approaches, (2) provide managers with flexibility to adjust regional quotas, where necessary, to prevent mortality on juveniles and reproductive female sharks, (3) provide a higher degree of resolution on which to manage seasonal fisheries, (4) minimize the social and economic costs associated with switching gear more often (i.e., only three times as opposed to four per year), (5) give a higher percentage of the quota to each open season than would occur under a quarterly season approach, and (6) will increase the number of open seasons (i.e., three as opposed to two) and spread them across the calendar year, thereby promoting greater economic stability of fishery participants.
Comment 2: NMFS received a range of comments regarding the proposed
trimester approach. Comments included: The entire season, from January
through November, should be closed to protect fish. The second semi
annual season closes too early. The trimester seasons will spread out
the landings and avoid current price drops. The trimester approach will
allow fishermen to catch sharks when grouper prices are lower and helps sharks be available yearround. Trimester seasons
[[Page 74750]]
appear to have the greatest potential to accommodate shark pupping
activities. The second trimester season should be closed to all shark fishing to reduce the catch of juveniles.
Response: NMFS considered three different seasons for the shark fishery in the development of the proposed and final rule. Trimester seasons (i.e., three fourmonth fishing seasons) are preferred because they will allow managers the flexibility to open and close seasons to match species requirements such as aggregating shark pupping seasons into one fishing season, as opposed to spreading pupping timeframes over multiple open seasons. Trimesters will also avoid undesirable dates (i.e., July 1st) for market openings. Additionally, trimester seasons will give fishermen a greater chance to build new markets for sharks, given that there will be more open seasons (i.e., three as opposed to two) spread across the calendar year. Increasing the number of open seasons and effectively spreading open seasons out more evenly over the calendar year will, in the longterm, result in greater economic stability for fishermen and associated communities.
Comment 3: NMFS should keep the semiannual seasons and open the second season on July 15th each year.
Response: Maintaining semiannual seasons could have negative ecological, social, and/or economic impacts should semiannual seasons continue to extend into pupping seasons. Given that LCS are overfished and overfishing is occurring, continued mortality levels on juvenile and reproductive females could cause the complex to decline further over time. Further declines in LCS stock status could result in additional reductions in available quota and/or other management measures, which could impact fishermen and fishing communities both economically and socially. Trimester seasons will aggregate the majority of shark pupping into one fishing season (i.e., second trimester) and simultaneously avoid market problems associated with a July 1st opening by providing for openings on January 1, May 1, and September 1 of each year.
Comment 4: NMFS should start each season at the same time to help disperse fishing effort and promote equitable distribution of the allowable quota.
Response: While opening shark seasons at the same time for all regions may help to disperse fishing effort and promote equitable distribution of the allowable quota, allowing managers flexibility to determine alternative season opening dates (i.e., by region) will promote further consideration of safety at sea and give greater fishing opportunities based upon fish availability in each region.
Comment 5: August and September are not good times for shark fishing. Most of the effort should be in October through December. Therefore, the quota should be reapportioned from the first two trimesters to the last trimester.
Response: NMFS recognizes that there are temporal differences in catchperuniteffort as well as catch composition in the shark fishery. As such, annual quotas need not be split equally between trimester seasons. Instead, trimester seasons will allow managers to establish quotas for each open season based on markets, pupping season, effort concerns, and other relevant factors. Initially, NMFS will split the available quota equally between trimesters for the first year or two and will reevaluate this approach via rulemaking, if necessary, based upon observed catch rates and other factors, such as stock status.
Comment 6: NMFS received a range of comments specific to the
proposed percentages for regional quotas. The comments included: The
historical percentage of small coastal sharks in the Gulf of Mexico is
incorrect due to improper identification and reporting. The regional
quota proposed for the North Atlantic is below the actual take and
would be filled quickly between the vessels fishing in the region. The
North Atlantic proposed portion of the LCS quota is too large and
should be reduced; the percentage was probably inflated due to
misidentification of sandbar sharks. The South Atlantic proposed portion for SCS is too large due to misinformation and
misidentification; there are just as many LCS reported in that region
as SCS. We can only support regional quotas if one region does not
prevent another region from having a fair shot at the fishery.
Response: NMFS combined information from two separate databases containing regional landings information as reported by dealers and states to NMFS over several years. These landings data represent the best available information pertaining to regional data. Given that the regional quotas seek to maintain historical landings, as opposed to reducing landings, NMFS does not expect this alternative to change previous fishing practices or result in any significant economic impact. Fishery participants will be allowed to fish in any region, provided that the season for the region in question is open and that the quota for that region has not been taken. Over time, this alternative may allow NMFS the flexibility to manage quotas to each region's maximum economic advantage. Additionally, if reporting indicates that participation in one region increases or decreases, NMFS may, through another rulemaking, modify the percentages available to each region to ensure that fishermen in all regions have a reasonable opportunity to fish for sharks. NMFS recognizes the need for more accurate species identification and as such, the agency will pursue mandatory workshops through a future rulemaking that will focus on improving species identification by fishery participants and possibly dealers and enforcement agents.
Comment 7: How will NMFS enforce the regional quota approach? Will there be three separate permits for vessels fishing within the regions or can a vessel fish in an open region and land catch in a closed region? We are only supportive of the regional quota approach if permitted vessels can fish in any region.
Response: Federal fishery participants will be allowed to fish in any region, provided that the season for the region in question is open and that the quota for that region has not been taken. As such, NMFS will not be issuing regional permits to vessels authorizing them to fish in a given region. Rather, each regional quota will be enforced by monitoring illegal fishing activity in each region, as is done in the Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery. As is current practice, the closure date for each region will be announced before the start of the season. Additionally, state agencies may have different permit and closure requirements. As such, fishery participants are encouraged to check with state agencies, where state permit and/or closure requirements are in question.
Comment 8: NMFS should not use data from 1999 to 2001 to establish the regional quotas. Instead, NMFS should use data from the 1980s (i.e., before management) in order to get an idea of where the fishery historically operated. If this is done, the North Atlantic will account for over half the landings.
Response: Calendar years 19992001 were used as the basis for
establishing regional quotas because they (1) represent the period of
time following the last major change in management of the shark
fishery, (2) fall after implementation of limited access permits, and
(3) represent the timeframe for which the best regional data are
available. Using a longer timeframe or only data from the past may not
provide an accurate representation of the current fishery. Over time, NMFS may, if warranted, decide to adjust the
[[Page 74751]]
regional quotas via rulemaking to ensure each region has an opportunity to fish.
Comment 9: NMFS should pay particular attention to regional differences in shark pupping activity and use its discretion in allocating quotas and setting seasons so as to best prevent mortality of congregating pregnant females, pups, and juveniles.
Response: Spatial differences in fishery practices and catches warrant further consideration, and regional quotas provide a means of preventing mortality of congregating reproductive females, pups, and juvenile sharks. Shark pupping data indicate that spatial differences exist between species utilization of various shark pupping grounds. For example, species within the SCS complex utilize pupping grounds between South Carolina and the Gulf of Mexico, whereas some species within the LCS complex utilize only the Atlantic coast for pupping grounds. NMFS will periodically assess regional differences in shark pupping activity and should changes be required, quota adjustments will be carried out via framework action.
Comment 1: We support the preferred alternative of an MSY basis. In the future, NMFS should estimate MSY on a speciesspecific basis for all LCS. NMFS should establish a similar approach for pelagic sharks when a validated assessment is available.
Response: Amendment 1 uses MSY as a basis for establishing commercial quotas. NMFS must determine MSY as well as optimum yield (OY) and specify status determination criteria to determine the status of the stock. As such, the 1999 HMS FMP defined fishing mortality and biomass levels necessary to produce MSY and OY on a continuing basis. Given that these definitions are not subject to change in this final rule, MSYbased quotas provide a direct means for determining appropriate fishery management action. MSY and OY estimates are readily available from stock assessment outputs and can be updated annually if necessary. NMFS is currently limited in its ability to estimate MSY for all shark species within each of the management units. However, as new information becomes available, NMFS will strive to integrate more speciesspecific information into stock assessments, where MSY could be calculated. Once the international stock assessment for pelagic sharks is complete, NMFS will reevaluate the appropriateness of existing pelagic shark quotas and the basis for calculating commercial quotas for these species.
Comment 2: NMFS received several comments regarding the reduction in LCS quota by 40 percent instead of the recommended 50 percent. Comments included: Because the proposed alternative reduces MSY by only 40 percent instead of the recommended 50 percent, NMFS should adopt other conservation methods such as gear restrictions and time/area closures whose effects can be quantified to show that they achieve the mortality goal of rebuilding with a 70percent probability. The 40 percent reduction is not reasonable; there is no reliable basis to stray from the scientific advice. The assessment recommendation is based on a 50percent probability of successful rebuilding; if NMFS were to apply the 70percent guide, the proposed reduction would be larger not smaller than 50 percent. Therefore, NMFS should reduce the quota by a minimum of 50 percent.
Response: The preferred quota alternatives will implement an LCS aggregate quota based upon a 45percent reduction of average maximum sustainable catch (MSC) for LCS, multiplied by the percentage of commercial catch attributable to the LCS complex. NMFS reduced the 50 percent recommended reduction by five percent after considering the following factors: (1) While the stock assessment did say that the LCS complex should be reduced by 50 percent, it also said that the reductions should be on species other than sandbar and blacktip; (2) observer data indicates that sandbar and blacktip sharks comprise approximately 67 percent of the LCS catch, indicating that a quota reduction would mostly apply to those species; (3) peer reviews of the 2002 LCS stock assessment indicated that the complex assessment may not be as accurate as individual species because of biological differences between species; (4) catch per unit effort (CPUE) data for silky, tiger, and scalloped hammerhead do not indicate a decline; and (5) the other preferred measures such as the time/area closure will reduce mortality and/or dead discards. Furthermore, the percent reduction has been revised upward from the 40percent reduction originally proposed in the draft Amendment based upon public comment received during public hearings. The Southeast Fisheries Science Center has indicated that the combination of the preferred alternatives, namely the 45percent quota reduction and time/area closure, would increase compliance in the fishery and allow for the LCS complex to rebuild within the specified timeframe. As such, further reductions in the LCS commercial quota are not necessary at this time. However, NMFS will adjust the quota over time based upon future stock assessments to ensure that the LCS complex rebuilds within the 26year rebuilding time frame.
Comment 3: NMFS must also account for state fisheries mortality estimates when setting quotas.
Response: State landings are included as part of the commercial landings percentage used to calculate the commercial quotas. Thus, the commercial quota is established to include landings by Federal and state fishermen. Any overharvests or underharvests will be accounted for in the same season of the following year.
Comment 4: We support the preferred alternative but the draft amendment is unclear on how information from future stock assessments will be used in setting quotas. Would the same percent of MSY always be used regardless of the population level?
Response: The LCS aggregate quota is based upon a 45percent reduction of average MSC for LCS, multiplied by the percentage of commercial catch attributable to the LCS complex. As such, this percent reduction may not be used when setting future quotas. Instead, NMFS will assess the appropriateness of percent reductions and/or increases as new information becomes available in future stock assessments in order to ensure that the LCS complex rebuilds within the rebuilding timeframe.
Comment 5: We support the proposed MSY basis as long as that
calculation continues to incorporate a target fishing mortality rate at
75 percent of the fishing mortality at MSY (F
Response: The 1999 HMS FMP defined fishing mortality and biomass
levels necessary to produce MSY and OY on a continuing basis. In
summary, a species is considered overfished when the current biomass
(B) is less than the minimum stock size threshold. The minimum stock
size threshold is determined based on the natural mortality of the
stock and the biomass at Maximum Sustainable Yield (B
[[Page 74752]]
A species is considered rebuilt when B is greater than B
Comment 1: NMFS received a range of comments regarding what the commercial minimum size should be. Comments included: We support the no commercial minimum size alternative. The minimum size in the HMS FMP was based on sandbar sharks but does not fit for all ridgeback LCS species. We support the proposed no minimum size because the minimum size was established for sandbar sharks which is no longer overfished and because it will help reduce regulatory discards. We support a minimum size for sharks. The minimum size of any shark should be 15 feet. If recreational fishermen have a minimum size to protect juveniles, commercial fishermen should have a minimum size as well. We could support no commercial minimum size if juveniles of all species were protected by time/area closures; the proposed time/area closure does not do this.
Response: NMFS considered six different minimum size alternatives in the commercial fishery. Not implementing a commercial minimum size is preferred because, in combination with the other preferred alternatives, it will minimize regulatory discards and economic and social impacts to commercial fishermen, while providing adequate protection for juvenile and neonate sharks through the time/area closure off of North Carolina. Furthermore, commercial gear, unlike recreational gear, can have high postrelease mortality rates. Therefore commercial management measures, which are aimed at reducing (i.e., quota reductions) or preventing (i.e., via time/area closures) catch are better for protecting juvenile and neonate sharks.
Comment 2: NMFS made a strong case in the HMS FMP for a minimum size based on protecting the age classes with the highest reproductive potential, demographic information, and the proportion of sharks brought to the boat dead. Now that NMFS is backing away from a ridgeback LCS quota, this measure is needed to protect the most sensitive life stages of ridgeback LCS (sandbar and dusky sharks in particular). NMFS should maintain the minimum size, show quantitative analyses that indicate a minimum size is not needed, or replace it with more effective speciesspecific measures to protect juvenile dusky and sandbar sharks.
Response: Maintaining the commercial minimum size is not warranted at this time. This rule finalizes several commercial management measures including, but not limited to, trimester seasons, regional quotas, reductions in the LCS quota, bycatch reduction measures, and a time/area closure to protect juvenile dusky and sandbar sharks, which will facilitate rebuilding of LCS.
Comment 3: If NMFS does not adopt a minimum size, it must adopt a time/area closure to reduce bycatch of juvenile and neonate sharks to levels at least as great as would be achieved with minimum sizes.
Response: Implementation of a time/area closure would reduce bycatch of juvenile and neonate sharks, but alone, it would not be sufficient to meet the rebuilding target for the LCS complex. As such, NMFS is implementing multiple management measures including, but not limited to reductions in the LCS quota, bycatch reduction measures, and the time/area closure, which are intended reduce bycatch of juvenile and neonate sharks.
Comment 4: NMFS should establish subgroup or speciesspecific minimum sizes within the LCS, SCS, and/or pelagic shark species groups as justified by new or updated research.
Response: Minimum sizes for subgroups or individual species within each management unit are not necessarily the most effective management measures. While a commercial minimum size would seek to protect and reduce fishing mortality on juvenile sharks, any conservation benefits gained may be offset by increases in regulatory discards and associated postrelease mortality if commercial fishermen are unable to avoid mixedsize aggregations of some shark species. For instance, while sandbar sharks tend to segregate by size, blacktip sharks and other species do not. Regulatory discards may also result in effort increases by fishermen in order to make up for lost catches, which could also result in increased interactions with protected (i.e., sea turtles and marine mammals) and nontargeted (i.e. prohibited sharks and other finfish) species. Additionally, regulatory discards of LCS are not counted against the 4,000 pound trip limit. Thus, if a fisherman should catch a set full of undersized sharks, those sharks would be discarded and the fisherman could set the gear again, possibly in another school of small sharks. If the ability of fishermen to target certain species of sharks improves, then NMFS may reconsider minimum sizes in the commercial fishery.
Comment 5: Commercial fishermen have long claimed that most sharks come in alive. Therefore, there does not seem to be any rationale for a recreational minimum size while similar commercial measures are eliminated. A commercial minimum size for mako sharks is overdue. Longliners are willing to compromise for a minimum size on mako sharks.
Response: Commercial fishery observer data indicate that a number of LCS exhibit low survivability following longline capture. These species include spinner (63 percent dead when brought to the vessel), dusky (81 percent), scalloped hammerhead (87 percent), blacktip (88 percent), silky (90 percent), and great hammerhead (95 percent). As such, NMFS believes that implementation of a minimum size in the commercial fishery would result in significant increases in regulatory dead discards of LCS. However, sharks caught on recreational gear are thought to have low postrelease mortality rates and, as such, a minimum size in the recreational fishery would contribute to LCS rebuilding by protecting juvenile and subadult sharks.
Comment 1: NMFS received a range of comments regarding what the commercial quota level should be, including: Commercial quota levels should be reduced or even eliminated until the complex recovers. Quotas should be reduced by 700 percent. We support the quota alternatives (classification, administration, and basis) insofar as that together they result in the lowest overall quotas to ensure sustainable levels for all species and protect juveniles.
Response: NMFS did not propose a specific quota level. Instead,
NMFS considered a wide range of quotas that resulted from the
combination of classification and quota basis alternatives,
specifically seven different commercial quotas for LCS and three
different commercial quotas for SCS. Each quota alternative carefully
considered the results of the 2002 stock assessments for LCS and SCS.
The preferred quota alternatives will implement commercial quota levels
of 1,017 mt dw for the LCS aggregate and 454 mt dw for the SCS
aggregate. These quota levels are expected to rebuild the LCS complex within the necessary time
[[Page 74753]]
frame and prevent overfishing of SCS. If future stock assessments
indicate adjustments are necessary to meet these goals, then the
preferred quota basis alternative will allow NMFS the flexibility to address such adjustments.
Comment 2: The most recent stock assessment called for a 50percent reduction in catches for the LCS complex but the preferred alternatives combined result in a 34percent reduction in commercial catch from recent years (1,692.7 mt dw to 1,109 mt dw). While the additional measures may result in further reductions in mortality, the other proposed measures could increase the quotas and undermine management.
Response: The combination of preferred alternatives including, but not limited to, a commercial quota with a 45percent reduction in catches and a time/area closure aimed at protecting juvenile and neonate sharks will rebuild the LCS complex. Analyses by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center indicate that the combination of the preferred alternatives in the draft Amendment would allow for the LCS complex to rebuild within the rebuilding time frame. Furthermore, the other final actions (i.e., trimester seasons and regional quotas) will not result in an increase in quotas, but will allow for more flexibility in management to better refine management measures to protect juvenile sharks and rebuild overfished LCS.
Comment 3: NMFS received several comments regarding the apparent increase in quota from the total of 816 mt dw in the HMS FMP to the proposed 1,109 mt dw. Comments included: Even though LCS are overfished and overfishing is occurring, NMFS is proposing to increase the LCS quota by 35 percent; this is hard to understand. NMFS should move forward with the MSY quota basis but maintain the 816 mt dw quota level until a new, validated stock assessment can be carried out.
Response: The no action alternative would implement commercial quota levels for LCS (i.e., 620 mt dw for ridgeback LCS and 196 mt dw for nonridgeback LCS) totaling 816 mt dw, which were approved in the 1999 HMS FMP based on projection models in the 1998 LCS stock assessment. These quota levels were never implemented due to litigation. Taking into consideration the courtapproved settlement agreement, the results of the 1998 stock assessment peer reviews, and other information, NMFS maintained the 1997 commercial quotas for LCS (i.e., 1,285 mt dw) as an interim measure pending completion of Amendment 1. As such, except for 2003, commercial fishermen have been fishing under the LCS quota of 1,285 mt dw, since 1997. The preferred alternatives, which would implement a LCS quota of 1,017, represent a 21percent reduction in available quota compared to the 1,285 mt dw baseline.
Comment 4: The LCS quota component of the speciesspecific quota alternatives is too low and should be doubled in order to reduce the potential for regulatory discards.
Response: The speciesspecific quota alternatives (i.e., MSY and average landings) incorporated an appropriate percent reduction for each species or species group, as recommended in the 2002 LCS stock assessment. Additionally, the 2002 stock assessment clearly indicated that LCS reductions should focus on species other than sandbar and blacktip. Because regulatory discards will occur as a result of implementing speciesspecific quotas in the LCS fishery, NMFS selected alternatives, which in combination with one another will aggregate LCS species and establish one commercial quota for the complex.
Comment 5: Fishing pressure on all LCS species except sandbar and blacktip has been abated since the HMS FMP. Any need to reduce the potential for bycatch of the other species via the use of an aggregate quota at a low quota level is inconsistent with the status and biomass levels of the principal commercial species and subject to the practicability standard of National Standard 9. It is not practicable to reduce the commercial fishery now that the primary commercial species are rebuilt.
Response: Amendment 1 seeks to rebuild the LCS complex, which is overfished. Consistent with National Standard 9, the preferred alternatives, which would aggregate LCS species and establish one commercial quota for the complex, will , to the extent practicable, minimize bycatch (i.e., regulatory discards of shark) resulting from partial closures (i.e., multiple closure dates by LCS grouping or individual species as a result of quotas being taken) of a mixed fishery and allow fishermen the opportunity to catch the entire quota. Additionally, the number of protected resource interactions may decrease, or at least not increase, because fishermen would not have to increase effort in order to make up for lost catch during partial closures and the LCS quota will be lower as a result of the preferred alternatives.
Comment 6: Mexican fishermen catch huge amounts of sharks. Why are U.S. fishermen limited? These limitations on U.S. fishermen has kept prices down.
Response: NMFS has regulatory jurisdiction over the exclusive economic zone (i.e., from generally 3 nautical miles seaward to the 200 nautical mile limit) in U.S. waters but cannot regulate the fishing activities of other countries. However, consistent with the National Plan of Action and the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, NMFS is continuing cooperative research efforts with other countries (e.g., Canada and Mexico) and engaging in deeper dialogues with international fishery management organizations such as the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), the United Nations General Assembly, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and others as appropriate for shark management.
Comment 7: We need an adequate incidental quota to reduce/eliminate regulatory discards and cover the inevitable secondary catches in many fisheries.
Response: An incidental quota or similar alternatives could be a
viable alternatives for reducing regulatory discards. NMFS will investigate this issue in a future rulemaking.
3. Recreational Management Measures
Comment 1: NMFS received a range of comments regarding the appropriate recreational retention limit, including: We support the preferred alternative and suggest that anglers also be allowed one additional blacktip shark because the stock is rebuilt. Only one shark of any species per vessel per trip should be allowed because most recreational anglers cannot identify individual shark species. The proposed alternative is appropriate and precautionary because the recreational sector has been fishing under regulations based on a stock assessment that was overturned and, therefore, contributed more to rebuilding. We do not oppose the proposed addition of bonnethead, but urge NMFS to monitor this species to prevent overexploitation; South Carolina has already taken the proposed action based on the same stock assessment results. Any additional catch reductions that may be required to meet management goals should come from the commercial sector before considering further cuts to the recreational sector. Recreational fishermen kill sharks for no reason and cause numerous dead discards to wash up on the beach. Recreational take levels should be reduced.
Response: One shark per vessel per trip plus one Atlantic sharpnose and one bonnethead shark per person per
[[Page 74754]]
trip is appropriate for the recreational shark fishery. This
alternative could reduce recreational harvest levels by the 8085
percent required under the rebuilding plan in Amendment 1 if angler
compliance increases. NMFS analyzed other alternatives in Amendment 1
that would have allowed the retention of additional LCS, SCS, and
pelagic sharks. However, because the 2002 LCS stock assessment
indicates that the LCS complex needs a reduction in fishing mortality
and many recreational anglers cannot correctly identify sharks, those
alternatives would not achieve the level of reduction needed to rebuild
LCS. With regard to discards and mortality in the recreational fishery,
NMFS urges anglers to comply with size and retention limits and release
sharks in a manner that maximizes their survival. NMFS may adjust size
and retention limits in the future based on the results of future stock assessments.
Comment 2: NMFS received several comments regarding methods of increasing compliance within the recreational fishery, including: Any noncompliance by the recreational sector is due to confusion with the current regulations and, to a lesser extent, the proper identification of different shark species. NMFS can solve these problems by increasing angler education and outreach. Compliance and enforcement is not strong in Federal waters. NMFS should increase outreach by using the internet, linking the HMS regulations to the NOAA weather page, and printing flyers for marinas, Sea Grant, port agents, and states.
Response: Compliance in the recreational fishery, outreach, and the availability of educational materials needs to be increased. NMFS will distribute a revised Atlantic shark recreational fishery brochure after the final rule for Amendment 1 is published. It will contain information regarding HMS Angling category permits, HMS Charter/ Headboat permits, bag limits and minimum sizes, release information, landing restrictions, the no sale provision, HMS tournament registration, tagging information, as well as species that may be retained, and species that must be released. Additional brochures on other HMS fisheries are available. NMFS is also currently producing an identification guide for sharks, tunas, and billfishes of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico that should be available shortly. Further, NMFS received public comment in favor of mandatory educational workshops for anglers and commercial fishermen discussing species identification, release techniques, and regulations. NMFS intends to move forward with requiring participation in mandatory workshops in a future rulemaking and will attempt to make voluntary workshops available to the public in the interim.
Comment 3: The oneshark per boat limit is not a problem except in tournaments where anglers may be forced to decide between keeping an eligible shark or taking a chance on catching a larger one. The difference between allowing one or two recreationally caught sharks would be minuscule on an annual basis, in comparison with what a longliner could kill during the same time period.
Response: Allowing recreational anglers an additional shark each would not have minor impacts compared to the commercial fleet. Currently, recreational fishermen take more sharks than commercial fishermen (142,000 LCS in 2001 versus 99,200 LCS in the commercial fishery). Additionally, recreational fishermen catch smaller sharks than commercial fishermen (average size of approximately 10 pounds versus 36 pounds in the commercial fishery). This information, combined with the facts that most anglers cannot correctly identify sharks and the LCS stock assessment recommended protecting juvenile LCS, provides support for the one shark limit. Further, the vast numbers of recreational anglers could lead to large numbers of LCS being taken. NMFS analyzed an alternative that would have allowed vessels with HMS Angling category permits participating in registered tournaments, or HMS CHB permit holders on for hire trips, to retain one shark per person, up to two sharks per vessel, per trip, as well as one Atlantic sharpnose and one bonnethead per person per trip. This alternative would have resulted in mortality levels greater than those expected from some of the other alternatives considered and is not consistent with the 2002 LCS stock assessment which indicates that the LCS complex needs a reduction in fishing mortality. Additionally, without more information regarding the status of pelagic sharks, this alternative could have been detrimental to pelagic sharks. However, this alternative could be combined with other fishing controls (e.g., increased minimum sizes) so that overall mortality is not increased. NMFS may consider this approach in the future.
Comment 4: Many tournaments have restricted eligible species only to makos and threshers in order to avoid the waste of sharks not normally taken for food.
Response: NMFS appreciates and encourages conservation efforts by anglers and tournament organizers.
Comment 1: NMFS received a range of comments regarding the recreational minimum size, including: We support the proposed alternative because a minimum size helps to promote the live release of young sharks. The number of recreational fishermen who fish for sharks from Maine to Texas could number in the millions, which could significantly affect the mortality of juvenile sharks especially if there is no minimum size. South Carolina has already taken this proposed measure; most recreational anglers support a minimum size larger than is being proposed. Because many fish are killed before they are measured, particularly if they are dangerous, we cannot support a recreational minimum size. An exception to the minimum size for blacknose sharks should be added, because they are not overfished and do not reach the proposed minimum size.
Response: A 4.5 feet fork length for all sharks and no size limit for Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks is appropriate for the recreational shark fishery. Sharks caught in recreational fisheries are thought to have low postrelease mortality rates and the preferred 4.5 foot fork length minimum size limit should minimize fishing mortality on the stages that contribute the most to population growth by maintaining catchandrelease fishing on juvenile and subadult sharks. The allowances for the retention of Atlantic sharpnose and bonnethead sharks without a minimum size were preferred because these species are easily identified, not overfished or experiencing overfishing, do not commonly reach the current 4.5 foot fork length minimum size limit, and are important recreational catches in some regions. Exceptions for other SCS species were not analyzed in Amendment 1 because of difficulties with identification (e.g., blacknose sharks) or because they are currently experiencing overfishing (e.g., finetooth sharks).
Concerning the safety of anglers who are required to measure live sharks in order to retain them, NMFS recommends that anglers mark areas on the outside of fishing vessel hulls (e.g., at the waterline or boot stripe) with the minimum size. If a shark is smaller than this measurement or if it is a prohibited species, it should be released.
Comment 2: Information on proper release techniques and equipment should be made available to the recreational sector.
Response: Workshops demonstrating proper handling and release techniques for finfish, sharks, and protected resources, and discussing regulations and species identification could reduce bycatch mortality, improve compliance with current regulations, and improve accuracy of reported data. NMFS intends to move forward with requiring participation in mandatory workshops in a future rulemaking and will attempt to make voluntary workshops available to the public in the interim.
Comment 1: NMFS received a range of comments regarding authorized gears, including: We support the preferred alternative. Recreational fishing techniques should be limited to rod and reel and handlines. Spearfishing gear should also be added to the list of allowable recreational fishing gears. Bandit gear is not appropriate for the recreational fishery. Bandit gear should be an allowable gear. Harpoon gear should be added to the list because many fishermen feel it is easier and safer to use harpoons than gaffs.
Response: Rod and reel and handline gear are appropriate gears for the recreational shark fishery, because they have lower bycatch and bycatch mortality of sharks, finfish, and protected species, and are being used in other recreational HMS fisheries. Bandit gear was not selected because it has traditionally been considered a commercial fishing gear and because the vast majority of recreational fishermen use rod and reel or handline gear. Spearfishing gear has not been an allowable gear in the recreational shark fishery and therefore was not included. However, implements used to secure rod and reel or handline catches alongside a vessel (e.g., gaffs and harpoons) are being allowed.
Comment 2: Limiting the recreational fishery to handline and rod and reel would prohibit landings by recreational gillnet fishermen.
Response: This is correct. All sharks caught recreationally with gears other than rod and reel and handline in Federal waters must be released. NMFS does not believe
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Karyl Brewster-Geisz, Heather Stirratt, or Chris Rilling at 3017132347 or fax 3017131917 or Greg Fairclough at 7275705741 or fax 7275705656.
14 CFR Part 39 40 CFR Part 52 14 CFR Part 71 33 CFR Part 165 50 CFR Part 679 47 CFR Part 73 26 CFR Part 1 40 CFR Part 180 33 CFR Part 117 50 CFR Part 17 44 CFR Part 67 50 CFR Part 648 14 CFR Part 97 33 CFR Part 100 40 CFR Part 63 50 CFR Part 622 44 CFR Part 65 50 CFR Part 660 26 CFR Part 301 39 CFR Part 111 40 CFR Part 300 6 CFR Part 5 40 CFR Part 271 47 CFR Part 64 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 50 CFR Part 665 44 CFR Part 64 10 CFR Part 50 49 CFR Part 571 47 CFR Part 76