![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); Pelagic Longline Fishery
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: February 11, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 28)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6621-6635]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11fe04-47]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 223 and 635
[Docket No. 040202035-4035-01; I.D. 112403A]
RIN 0648-AR80
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); Pelagic Longline Fishery
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for comments; public hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule would reduce bycatch and bycatch mortality
of sea turtles caught incidentally in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico
HMS pelagic longline fisheries, consistent with the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Based upon the results of an experiment
in the Northeast Distant (NED) statistical reporting area and
information indicating that the level of incidental takes of sea
turtles established for the HMS pelagic longline fishery has been
exceeded, NMFS proposes to implement new sea turtle bycatch mitigation
measures throughout the fishery, including the NED statistical
reporting area, and to reopen the NED closed area. Through
experimentation in the NED, certain hook and bait measures have proven
to be effective at reducing sea turtle bycatch, and are expected to
reduce bycatch mortality and interactions with these species. The
proposed bycatch mitigation measures include mandatory pelagic longline
circle hook and bait requirements, and mandatory possession and use of
onboard equipment to reduce sea turtle bycatch mortality. The intent of
this proposed action is to reduce interactions with, and post-release
mortality of, threatened and endangered sea turtles in HMS pelagic
longline fisheries to comply with the ESA and the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
DATES: Written comments on the proposed rule must be received no later
than 5 p.m., eastern standard time, on March 15, 2004. NMFS will hold
public hearings from March 2, 2004, through March 9, 2004. See
ADDRESSES for specific locations, dates, and times.
ADDRESSES: The public hearing locations, dates and times are:
1. Tuesday, March 2, 2004 - North Dartmouth, MA, 7 - 9 p.m.
University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, 285 Old Westport Road, Deon
Building, Room 105, North Dartmouth, MA 02747-2300;
2. Thursday, March 4, 2004 - New Orleans, LA, 7 - 9 p.m. New
Orleans Airport Hilton Hotel, 901 Airline Drive, Kenner, LA 70062; and
3. Tuesday, March 9, 2004 - Manteo, NC, 7 - 9 p.m. North Carolina
Aquarium on Roanoke Island, 374 Airport Road, Manteo, NC 27954-0967.
Written comments on the proposed rule should be submitted to
Christopher Rogers, Chief, Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Management
Division (SF/1), National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Comments may be sent via facsimile
(fax) to 301-713-1917. Comments on this proposed rule may also be
submitted by e-mail. The mailbox address for providing e-mail comments
is: 0648AR80.PROPOSED@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line of the e-
mail comment the following document identifier: 0648-AR80. For copies
of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Regulatory
Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (DSEIS/RIR/IRFA),
contact Russell Dunn at (727) 570-5447.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Russell Dunn, Greg Fairclough, or
Richard A. Pearson at (727) 570-5447 or fax (727) 570-5656.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Atlantic tuna and swordfish fisheries
are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the
Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA). Atlantic sharks are managed under
the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Fishery Management Plan
for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (HMS FMP), finalized in 1999,
is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635. The Atlantic pelagic
longline fishery is also subject to the requirements of the ESA and the
Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA).
Management History of Sea Turtle Bycatch Reduction
Under the ESA, Federal agencies must consult with either the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service or NMFS whenever they authorize, fund, or
carry out an action that may adversely affect a threatened or
endangered species or its designated critical habitat. In the case of
marine fisheries, the NMFS Office of Sustainable Fisheries consults
with its Office of Protected Resources. After consultation, NMFS issues
a Biological
[[Page 6622]]
Opinion (BiOp) that determines whether a fishery management action is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or
endangered populations of marine species, including sea turtles. If the
determination is that the action is likely to jeopardize a listed
species, NMFS provides one or more reasonable and prudent alternatives
(RPA) that would permit the activity to proceed without creating
jeopardy. NMFS then identifies the amount or level of incidental take
of endangered species (incidental take statement (ITS)), and specifies
the terms and conditions which must be met in order to mitigate impacts
on a listed species. ESA consultation must be reinitiated when a
regulated action exceeds the level of take previously identified in an
existing ITS; if new information reveals effects of the action that may
affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent
not previously considered; or if the action is subsequently modified in
a manner that causes an effect that was not considered in an existing
BiOp.
Since 1999, three BiOps have been issued that address the HMS
pelagic longline fishery (April 23, 1999; June 30, 2000; June 14,
2001). In November, 1999, NMFS reinitiated ESA consultation based upon
information indicating that the number of sea turtles taken in the
pelagic longline fishery had exceeded the ITS established by the April
23, 1999, BiOp. Also, proposed regulations (64 FR 69982, December 15,
1999) to reduce bycatch in the HMS pelagic longline fishery triggered
the need to reinitiate consultation. The resulting June 30, 2000, BiOp
concluded that the pelagic longline fishery was likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles.
To implement the RPA in June 30, 2000, BiOp, NMFS issued emergency
regulations (65 FR 60889, October 13, 2000) that closed a 55,970-square
nautical mile, L-shaped portion of the NED area to pelagic longline
fishing from October 10, 2000, through April 9, 2001, and required the
possession and use of line clippers and dipnets for all HMS-permitted
pelagic longline vessels. NMFS published an interim final rule on March
30, 2001 (66 FR 17370), continuing the requirement to possess and use
dipnets and line clippers on all vessels in the pelagic longline
fishery.
On June 14, 2001, NMFS issued a new BiOp incorporating information
obtained from a January 2001 technical gear workshop, and a February
2001 report entitled ``Stock Assessment of Loggerhead and Leatherback
Sea Turtles and an Assessment of the Impact of the Pelagic Longline
Fishery on Loggerhead and Leatherback Sea Turtles of the Western North
Atlantic.'' The June 14, 2001, BiOp determined that the FMP was likely
to jeopardize loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. The BiOp included
an RPA that required, among other measures, closure of the NED. After
implementation of the RPA, the anticipated incidental take levels
(i.e., interactions) established for the HMS pelagic longline fishery
in the June 14, 2001, BiOp were: leatherback sea turtles - 438
estimated captured per calendar year; loggerhead sea turtles - 402
estimated captured per calendar year; green, hawksbill, and Kemps
ridley sea turtles (combined) - 35 estimated captured per calender
year. If these incidental take levels were exceeded, the BiOp required
reinitiation of consultation and a review of the RPA that was provided.
NMFS issued an emergency rule on July 13, 2001, (66 FR 36711;
revised on September 24, 2001 (66 FR 48812)) to implement the RPA,
including a closure of the NED area to pelagic longline vessels through
January 9, 2002, gear modifications outside the NED area, and a
requirement to post sea turtle handling and release guidelines on HMS-
permitted vessels. The emergency rule was later extended for an
additional 180 days through July 8, 2002. A final rule, published on
July 9, 2002 (67 FR 45393), implemented the RPA required by the June
14, 2001, BiOp.
The RPA recognized that developing gear technologies or fishing
strategies capable of significantly reducing the likelihood of
capturing sea turtles or dramatically reducing mortality rates of
captured sea turtles was necessary to minimize the effects of domestic
and international longline fishing activities on sea turtle
populations. NMFS undertook a 3-year research experiment (2001-2003) in
the NED to develop or modify fishing gear and techniques to reduce sea
turtle interactions and the mortality associated with such
interactions. Upon successful completion of the gear research
experiment and its final analysis, the BiOp required that NMFS
implement a rule to require the adoption of complementary bycatch
reduction measures. The rule would be required before pelagic longline
vessels could fish again within the NED area.
Estimated 2002 Bycatch of Sea Turtles in the U.S. Atlantic HMS Pelagic
Longline Fishery
Pelagic longline gear consists of a mainline, often many miles
long, suspended in the water column by floats and from which baited
hooks are attached on leaders (gangions). It is often used to target
HMS. Though not completely selective, pelagic longline gear can be
modified through gear configuration, hook depth, and timing of sets to
target swordfish, yellowfin tuna, or bigeye tuna.
Due to interactions with protected resources and bycatch of
recreationally-important finfish, the pelagic longline fishery has had
a fishery observer program in place since 1992 to document finfish
bycatch, characterize fishery behavior, and quantify interactions with
protected species. In addition, a mandatory fishery logbook system has
been in place since 1992 requiring boat captains to report fishing
effort, gear characteristics, and commercial catch. Thus, there is
information available on both the absolute level of effort in this
fishery and bycatch rates of protected species.
These data are used to generate annual estimates of sea turtle
bycatch. Bycatch rates (catch-per-hook) of protected species are
quantified based upon observer data by year, fishing area, and quarter.
The estimated bycatch rate is then multiplied by the total fishing
effort (number of hooks), as reported to the mandatory fishery logbook
program, to obtain estimates of total interactions with protected
species. These methods, as well as a description of any sources of bias
or uncertainty, are detailed in a report entitled, ``Estimated Bycatch
of Marine Mammals and Turtles in the U.S. Atlantic Pelagic Longline
Fleet During 2001 - 2002'' (NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC 515
(2003)).
In 2002, 9,614 sets were reported and 856 sets were observed, for
an average total observer coverage rate of 8.9 percent. The 2002 total
reported pelagic longline fishing effort, including the NED area
research experiment, was 7.15 million hooks. There were 335 observed
interactions with marine turtles. Many of these interactions occurred
during the NED experimental fishery, but are not counted against the
ITS because the experimental fishery had a separate ITS. As described
below, the greatest number of turtle takes during fishing occurred in
2002 in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) in the 2nd and 3rd quarters. One
leatherback turtle was observed dead during 2002. The vast majority of
the remaining turtles were reported as being released alive and
injured. Most of these were hooked. Leatherback turtles were most
typically hooked in the front shoulder, armpit, or flipper, while
loggerhead turtles more often swallowed the hook or were hooked in the
mouth. In the NED gear experiment, the majority of fishing gear was
removed prior to release, with the exception of sea turtles
[[Page 6623]]
that swallowed hooks. For turtles that swallowed hooks, the trailing
line was generally removed before releasing the turtle.
A total of 962 leatherback sea turtle interactions and 575
loggerhead sea turtle interactions were estimated for 2002.
Interactions with leatherback sea turtles occurred predominantly in the
GOM area (695 animals), while loggerhead interactions were distributed
across the GOM area (170 animals), the Northeast coastal (NEC) area
(147 animals), the Florida east coast (FEC) area (99 animals), and the
mid-Atlantic bight (MAB) area (94 animals). These estimates indicate
that the current ITS established for leatherback and loggerhead sea
turtles in the June 14, 2001, BiOp has been exceeded. Accordingly, NMFS
has reinitiated consultation on the Atlantic HMS pelagic longline
fishery, as required by the ESA.
Results of the NED Gear Experiment
In cooperation with the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fleet, NMFS
recently completed a 3-year gear experiment permitted pursuant to
section 10 of the ESA in the NED statistical reporting area to develop
and test methods to reduce bycatch, and bycatch mortality, of sea
turtles caught incidentally while commercial pelagic longline fishing.
A key objective of the research experiment was to develop and verify
techniques to reduce sea turtle interactions that could be ``exported''
and applied throughout the range of the domestic and international
pelagic longline fishery in the Atlantic basin, and possibly the
Pacific Ocean.
The experiment identified various sea turtle bycatch mitigation
techniques, primarily involving hook and bait combinations, that
reduced sea turtle interactions. In 2002, the experimental design
evaluated the effects of an 18/0 non-offset circle hook, an 18/0 offset
circle hook (10£) with squid bait, and the use of whole
mackerel bait on both offset ``J'' hooks (control) and 18/0 offset
circle hooks in reducing sea turtle interactions with pelagic longline
gear. In 2003, the experimental design evaluated the effects of an 18/0
non-offset circle hook with squid bait, an 18/0 offset circle hook
(10£) with mackerel bait, and a 20/0 circle hook with
mackerel bait. The experiment further tested three hook treatments to
examine their impacts on tuna catches.
A ``J'' hook is generally ``J''-shaped with the barb pointing
upward. Unlike a ``J'' hook, a circle hook possesses a barb pointing
perpendicularly back to the shank. An offset circle hook is a circle
hook in which the barbed end of the hook is displaced relative to the
parallel plane of the eyed-end, or shank, of the hook when laid on its
side
Both loggerhead and leatherback sea turtle catch rates were
significantly reduced for the 18/0 non-offset circle hook with squid
bait, as compared to the ``J'' hook with squid bait. Combined data for
years 2002 and 2003 of the experiment provided a reduction rate of
74.03 percent for loggerhead sea turtle interactions. The reduction
rate for leatherback sea turtles was 75.38 percent. There was a loss of
swordfish by weight of 30.35 percent. There was a nominal increase in
bigeye tuna catch by weight of 25.23 percent, but this was not found to
be statistically significant.
Loggerhead and leatherback sea turtle catch rates were also
significantly reduced with the 18/0 offset circle hook with squid bait,
as compared to the ``J'' hook with squid bait. The mean reduction rate
for loggerhead sea turtles was 85 percent. The mean reduction rate for
leatherback sea turtles was 50 percent. There was a mean loss of
swordfish by weight of 29 percent. There was also a nominal increase in
bigeye tuna catch, which was not found to be statistically significant.
This hook treatment was not tested during 2003.
Loggerhead and leatherback sea turtle catch rates were also
significantly reduced by using whole mackerel bait, rather than squid
bait, on ``J'' hooks. The mean reduction rate for loggerhead sea
turtles was 75 percent. For leatherback sea turtles, there was a mean
reduction rate of 67 percent. There was a 63-percent mean increase of
swordfish by weight. However, there was a 90-percent reduction in
bigeye tuna catch by weight. This hook treatment was not tested during
2003.
The best reduction rate for loggerhead sea turtles was achieved by
using a combination of whole mackerel bait with an 18/0 offset circle
hook. Combined data for years 2002 and 2003 of the experiment provided
a reduction rate of 90.58 percent for loggerhead sea turtle
interactions. The reduction rate for leatherback turtles was 67.25
percent. There was an increase in swordfish catch by weight of 15.62
percent. However, there was a loss of 83.84 percent for bigeye tuna by
weight.
The results of the experimental research indicate that loggerhead
and leatherback sea turtle interactions associated with the Western
Atlantic HMS pelagic longline fishery can be significantly reduced by
employing 18/0 offset (10£) circle hooks with whole
mackerel, rather than squid, as bait. When the two treatments are used
together, reductions in turtle interactions can be obtained without
negatively impacting swordfish catch. Benefits associated with
swordfish (increased catches) may be less certain when fishing occurs
in warmer ocean temperatures and may decline to zero, or even result in
declining catches. This same combination, specifically the use of whole
mackerel bait, could negatively impact bigeye tuna catches. In general,
treatments that are effective at minimizing turtle interactions, and
that have positive impacts on swordfish catches, have negative impacts
on tuna catches and vise-versa.
Proposed Commercial Management Measures
The intent of this proposed rule is to reduce the incidental take
of threatened and endangered sea turtles, and to reduce post-release
mortality of incidentally-captured sea turtles, in the HMS pelagic
longline fishery to comply with the ESA, and in accordance with the M-S
Act and other applicable Federal law. To achieve these reductions,
results from the NED gear experiment are proposed to be applied to the
HMS pelagic longline fishery as a whole.
As previously discussed, the measures in this proposed rule were
first developed and tested during the NED gear experiment. Because of
their effectiveness at reducing sea turtle bycatch without negatively
impacting swordfish catch, implementation of the proposed management
measures (e.g., circle hook and bait requirements, possession and use
of sea turtle release gear, and adherence to sea turtle handling
protocols) will mitigate the need for a year-round closure of the NED
area. However, management measures for the entire HMS pelagic longline
fishery are necessary because, based upon available information, the
sea turtle ITS established in the June 14, 2001, BiOp has been exceeded
as a result of fishing activity occurring outside of the NED. Reopening
the NED is expected to result in between 18 - 46 additional loggerhead
interactions, and between 36 - 54 additional leatherback interactions
under the preferred alternatives. The proposed management measures,
described below, are projected to reduce sea turtle interactions for
the entire HMS pelagic longline fishery to levels that will be in
compliance with the ESA.
A. Proposed Sea Turtle Bycatch Release Equipment and Careful Release
Protocols
Currently, to reduce injuries and mortalities associated with sea
turtle interactions, all Atlantic vessels that have pelagic longline
gear onboard and
[[Page 6624]]
have been issued, or are required to have, Federal HMS limited access
permits, must possess onboard sea turtle release gear, including line
clippers and dipnets that meet minimum design standards. Dipnets are
required to boat sea turtles, when practicable, and line clippers are
required to disengage any hooked or entangled sea turtles by cutting
the line as close as possible to the hook. Pelagic longline vessels are
also currently required to post, inside the wheelhouse, a plastic
placard provided by NMFS describing careful handling and release
guidelines for incidentally-captured sea turtles. Turtles that are
brought on board are also currently required to be handled in
accordance with procedures specified by NOAA's Office of Protected
Resources at Sec. 223.206(d)(1).
The proposed sea turtle bycatch release equipment requirements,
described below, would similarly apply to all Atlantic vessels that
have pelagic longline gear onboard and have been issued, or are
required to have, Federal HMS limited access permits. The requirement
to possess and utilize line clippers and dipnets would remain in
effect. However, the design standards for this equipment are proposed
to be slightly modified. The modified design standards for line cutters
may still be represented by the Arceneaux line clipper, as well as the
NOAA/LaForce Line Cutter model. Line cutters may also be fabricated
using available materials. The minimum design standards for dipnets are
largely unchanged, except that the extended reach handle is proposed to
be amended by specifying that its length must be a minimum of 150-
percent of the vessel's freeboard, or 6-feet (1.83 m), whichever is
greater. Several additional pieces of required equipment to facilitate
the removal of fishing hooks from incidentally-captured sea turtles are
being proposed in this rule. Diagrams for several of the proposed
pieces of equipment are provided in Appendix B1 to the DSEIS prepared
for this proposed rule in a draft document entitled, ``Requirements and
Equipment Needed for the Careful Release of Sea Turtles Caught in Hook
and Line Fisheries.'' This document is also available on the HMS
website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms. 
Minimum design
standards for the pieces of equipment are provided in the proposed
regulations.
The following new, or newly-revised, gears are proposed to be
required: (A) a long-handled line clipper or cutter; (B) a long-handled
dehooker for ingested hooks; (C) a long-handled dehooker for external
hooks; (D) a long-handled device to pull an ``inverted V''; (E)a
dipnet; (F) a standard automobile tire; G) a short-handled dehooker for
ingested hooks; (H) a short-handled dehooker for external hooks; (I)
long-nose or needle-nose pliers; (J) a bolt cutter; (K) a monofilament
line cutter; and, (L) two different types of mouth openers and mouth
gags (including either a block of hard wood, a set of three canine
mouth gags, a set of two sturdy dog chew bones, a set of two rope loops
covered with hose, a hank of rope, a set of four PVC splice couplings,
or a large avian oral speculum).
Items A - D above are intended to be used for turtles that are not
boated. Items E - L above are intended to be used for turtles that are
brought onboard. The long-handled dehooker for ingested hooks required
in Item B would also satisfy the requirement for Item C. If a 6-foot
(1.83 m) J-style dehooker is used for Item C, it would also satisfy the
requirement for Item D. Similarly, the short-handled dehooker for
ingested hooks required for Item G would also satisfy the requirement
for Item H. NMFS recommends, but has not proposed a requirement, that
one type of mouth opener/mouth gag allow for hands-free operation of
the dehooking device or other tool, after the mouth gag is in place.
Only a canine mouth gag would satisfy this recommendation. Also, as
described in Appendix B1 of the DSEIS prepared for the proposed rule, a
``turtle tether'' and a ``turtle hoist'' are recommended by NMFS, but
are not being proposed as requirements.
Table 1 provides an initial list of sea turtle bycatch release
equipment that is approved as meeting the minimum design standards. At
this time, NMFS is aware of only one manufacturer of long-handled and
short-handled dehookers for ingested hooks that meet the minimum design
standards. However, this proposed rule would allow for approval of
other devices, as they become available, if they meet the minimum
design standards. Line cutters or line clippers (items A and K) and
dehookers (items B, C, G, H) not included on the initial list must be
NMFS-approved before being used. NMFS would publish a notice in the
Federal Register of any new items approved as meeting the design
standards.
Table 1. NMFS-Approved Models For Equipment Needed For The Careful
Release of Sea Turtles Caught In Hook And Line Fisheries
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Item NMFS-Approved Models
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Long-handled line cutter LaForce Line Cutter; or
Arceneaux Line Clipper
(B) Long-handled dehooker for ingested ARC Pole Model Deep-Hooked
hooks Dehooker (Model BP11)
(C) Long-handled dehooker for external ARC Model LJ6P (6 ft (1.83 m));
hooks or ARC Model LJ36; or ARC Pole
Model Deep-Hooked Dehooker
(Model BP11); or ARC 6 ft.
(1.83 m) Pole Big Game
Dehooker (Model P610)
(D) Long-handled device to pull an ARC Model LJ6P (6 ft.); or
``inverted V'' Davis Telescoping Boat Hook to
96 in. (2.44 m) (Model
85002A); or West Marine
[numsign]
F6H5 Hook and
[numsign]
F6-006 Handle
(E) Dipnet ARC 12-ft. (3.66-m) Breakdown
Lightweight Dip Net Model DN6P
(6 ft. (1.83 m)); or ARC Model
DN08 (8 ft.(2.44 m)); or ARC
Model DN 14 (12 ft. (3.66 m)
); or ARC Net Assembly &
Handle (Model DNIN); or
Lindgren-Pitman, Inc. Model
NMFS Turtle Net
(F) Standard automobile tire Any standard automobile tire
free of exposed steel belts
(G) Short-handled dehooker for ingested ARC 17-inch (43.18-cm) Hand-
hooks Held Bite Block Deep-Hooked
Turtle Dehooking Device (Model
ST08)
(H) Short-handled dehooker for external ARC Hand-Held Large J-Style
hooks Dehooker (Model LJ07); or ARC
Hand-Held Large J-Style
Dehooker (Model LJ24); or ARC
17-inch (43.18-cm) Hand-Held
Bite Block Deep-Hooked Turtle
Dehooking Device (Model ST08);
or Scotty's Dehooker
(I) Long-nose or needle-nose pliers 12-in. (30.48-cm) S.S. NuMark
Model [numsign]030281109871;
or any 12-inch (30.48-cm)
stainless steel long-nose or
needle-nose pliers
(J) Bolt cutter H.K. Porter Model 1490 AC
[[Page 6625]]
(K) Monofilament line cutter Jinkai Model MC-T
(L) Two of the following Mouth Openers ...............................
and Mouth Gags
(L1) Block of hard wood Any block of hard wood meeting
design standards (e.g.,
Olympia Tools Long-Handled
Wire Brush and Scraper (Model
974174))
(L2) Set of (3) canine mouth gags Jorvet Model [numsign]4160,
4162, and 4164
(L3) Set of (2) sturdy dog chew bones Nylabone[reg]
(a trademark
owned by T.F.H. Publications,
Inc.); or Gumabone[reg]
(a
trademark owned by T.F.H.
Publications, Inc.); or
Galileo[reg]
(a trademark
owned by T.F.H. Publications,
Inc.)
(L4) Set of (2) rope loops covered with Any set of (2) rope loops
hose covered with hose meeting
design standards
(L5) Hank of rope Any size soft braided nylon
rope is acceptable, provided
it creates a hank of rope
approximately 2 - 4 inches
(5.08 cm - 10.16 cm) in
thickness
(L6) Set of (4) PVC splice couplings A set of (4) Standard Schedule
40 PVC splice couplings (1-
inch (2.54-cm), 1 1/4-inch
3.175-cm), 1 1/2 inch (3.81-
cm), and 2-inch (5.08-cm)
(L7) Large avian oral speculum Webster Vet Supply (Model
85408); or Veterinary
Specialty Products (Model VSP
216-08); orJorvet (Model J-
51z); or Krusse (Model 273117)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed measures regarding sea turtle handling and careful
release protocols, described below, would apply to all Atlantic vessels
that have pelagic longline gear onboard and have been issued, or are
required to have, Federal HMS limited access permits. The existing
requirement to post a plastic placard inside the wheelhouse describing
sea turtle handling and release guidelines would remain in effect, as
would the requirement to adhere to existing sea turtle handling and
resuscitation procedures specified by NOAA's Office of Protected
Resources at Sec. 223.206(d)(1). Additional sea turtle handling
requirements at Sec. 635.21(c)(5)(ii) are being proposed in this rule
to improve the care of sea turtles on deck, and to facilitate the
removal of fishing line and hooks from incidentally-captured sea
turtles. The newly proposed procedures for hook removal and careful
release of sea turtles are described in detail in a document entitled,
``Careful Release Protocols for Release with Minimal Injury,'' which is
provided in Appendix B2 of the DSEIS prepared for this proposed rule,
and which is proposed to be required onboard all HMS pelagic longline
vessels. This document is also available on the HMS website at
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms.
This proposed rule also makes a minor revision to the regulatory
text at Sec. 223.206(d)(1)(ii) to clarify that the turtle handling and
resuscitation provisions of Sec. 223.206(d)(1)(i) are in addition to
the turtle handling requirements in 50 CFR 635.21.
B. Proposed HMS Pelagic Longline Gear Modifications
This proposed rule would require that vessels which have pelagic
longline gear on board and that have been issued, or are required to
have, a limited access swordfish, shark, or tuna longline category
permit for use in the Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean Sea and
the Gulf of Mexico would be limited, at all times, to possessing on
board and/or using only one of the following combinations of hooks and
bait: (i) 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to exceed 10
degrees and whole mackerel bait only; or, (ii) 18/0 or larger non-
offset circle hooks and squid bait only. Only one of these two types of
hook and bait combinations would be allowed to be possessed onboard
and/or used on a pelagic longline vessel during a trip. A ``circle
hook'' is proposed to be defined as a fishing hook with the point
turned perpendicularly back to the shank. The ``offset'' is proposed to
be measured from the barbed end of the hook and is relative to the
parallel plane of the eyed-end, or shank, of the hook when laid on its
side. The outer diameter of an 18/0 circle hook at its widest point
must be no smaller than 1.97 inches (50 mm), when measured with the eye
of the hook on the vertical axis (y-axis) perpendicular to the
horizontal axis (x-axis). Pictures of these two types of circle hooks
and a diagram explaining how to measure the offset are provided in the
DSEIS prepared for this proposed rule.
Whole mackerel bait is proposed to be defined as whole Atlantic
mackerel (Scomber scombrus), and not pieces or chunks of the fish. NMFS
is specifically proposing to require whole Atlantic mackerel bait for
use with 18/0 or larger offset circle hooks, because the NED gear
research experiment documented the effects of this hook and bait
combination on catches of swordfish, tunas and sea turtles. However,
NMFS recognizes that whole Atlantic mackerel may not be traditionally
used in some regions of the country or, at times, may be difficult to
obtain. Therefore, NMFS is requesting comment on the availability and
feasibility of requiring the use of whole Atlantic mackerel bait.
These management measures are being proposed to reduce interactions
with sea turtles and to assure compliance with the ESA, while
minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse economic impacts on
commercial fishing vessels. Based upon data obtained from the NED gear
experiment, the deployment of 18/0 or larger offset circle hooks and
whole mackerel bait is expected to reduce loggerhead sea turtle
interactions by 90.58 percent and leatherback sea turtle interactions
by 67.26 percent, while increasing swordfish catches by 15.62 percent.
Increased catches of swordfish, by weight, may be less certain when
fishing in warmer ocean temperatures and may decline to zero, or even
result in declining catches.
The NED gear experiment results also indicate that using 18/0 or
larger non-offset circle hooks with squid bait will reduce loggerhead
sea turtle interactions by 74.03 percent and leatherback sea turtle
interactions by 75.38 percent, without negatively impacting bigeye tuna
catches. While both hook and bait treatments are effective at reducing
turtle interactions, the treatment that increased swordfish catches
(i.e., option
[[Page 6626]]
i - 18/0 or larger offset circle hooks and whole mackerel bait)
generally reduced tuna catches, and vice versa.
Based upon the successful results of the NED gear experiment, NMFS
proposes to remove the current prohibition on pelagic longline fishing
in the NED statistical reporting area, because the proposed hook and
bait regulations will reduce sea turtle interactions throughout the
fishery to the extent that the fishery management action will not be
likely to jeopardize sea turtles.
Request For Specific Comments
In addition to comments on the proposed measures described above,
NMFS is specifically requesting public comment on six items. First,
NMFS requests information on the current availability of 18/0 offset
and non-offset circle hooks, and the amount of time that would be
needed to fill orders for vessels required to use these hooks, as well
as information on the amount of time needed for vessels to come into
compliance after final regulations are published. NMFS recognizes that
vessel owners may want to fish in the NED, or elsewhere, as soon as
possible, but NMFS may need to delay the effective date of final
regulations to allow time for affected entities to comply with the new
requirements. Second, NMFS is interested in receiving comments on the
proposed definition of a circle hook. NMFS recognizes that hook shape
is critical to achieving the conservation goals of this rulemaking. The
lay definition of a circle hook, in which the point of the hook is
turned back perpendicular to the shank of the hook, allows for a wide
range of hook shapes, some of which more closely resemble traditional
``J'' hooks than true circles. More ``J''-shaped circle hooks, where
only the very tip of the barb is turned back perpendicular to the shank
of the hook, may reduce the conservation benefit attributable to more
circular-shaped circle hooks. Third, NMFS recognizes that there is no
industry-standard definition of 16/0, 18/0 or 20/0 circle hooks. As
such, hooks labeled 16/0, 18/0, or 20/0 may vary in size significantly
from one manufacturer to another. NMFS seeks informed comment to better
assist in developing minimum technical specifications to define the
gauge of circle hooks and ensure that the intended ecological goals of
this rulemaking are achieved. Fourth, NMFS is interested in receiving
comments on the feasibility of requiring whole Atlantic mackerel
(Scomber scombrus) bait versus whole finfish bait in terms of
availability, practicality, and economic impacts, as well as the
efficacy of whole Atlantic mackerel bait versus whole finfish bait in
terms of maintaining catches of target species and reducing sea turtle
interactions. Because the NED gear experiment documented the biological
effects of using whole mackerel bait with an 18/0 offset circle hook,
that requirement is being proposed. Fifth, NMFS is requesting public
comment on the potential impacts on tuna catches of the proposed
regulations requiring the use of 18/0 or larger circle hooks. The NED
gear experiment provided much information on the impacts of an 18/0
circle hook on swordfish catches, but not as much information on tuna
catches, particularly yellowfin tuna. Finally, NMFS recognizes that an
important component of reducing the mortality associated with the
incidental capture of sea turtles is the removal of fishing gear,
specifically hooks and line, in a manner that minimizes further trauma
to the animals. As such, NMFS requests specific comment on the proposed
possession and use requirements of release gear and handling protocols
identified in the preferred alternatives and further detailed under
Appendices B1 and B2 of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement.
Alternative NEPA Procedures
To more rapidly reduce sea turtle interactions and to mitigate the
economic impact of sea turtle bycatch mitigation measures, NMFS has
requested and been authorized to execute alternative procedures for the
preparation and completion of an SEIS. The Council on Environmental
Quality has authorized a waiver of 14 of the standard 45 days for the
DSEIS comment period, and 4 of the standard 30 days for the waiting
period before the record of decision on this action can be finalized.
The public comment period on the DSEIS and this proposed rule will
remain open until 5 P.M. on March 15, 2004.
Classification
This proposed rule is published under the authority of the
Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and ATCA, 16 U.S.C. 971
et seq.
As required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NMFS has prepared
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the
impacts of the preferred alternatives and any significant alternatives
to the proposed rule that could minimize significant economic impacts
on small entities. A summary of the information presented in the IRFA
is provided below. The Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (DSEIS) prepared for this proposed rule provides further
discussion of the biological, social, and economic impacts of all the
alternatives considered.
This proposed rule would apply to all Atlantic vessels that have
pelagic longline gear onboard and have been issued, or are required to
have, Federal HMS limited access permits. NMFS considers all commercial
permit holders to be small entities. NMFS estimates that, as of
November 2003, approximately 235 tuna longline limited access permits
had been issued. In addition, approximately 203 directed swordfish
limited access permits, 100 incidental swordfish limited access
permits, 249 directed shark limited access permits, and 357 incidental
shark limited access permits had been issued. Because vessels
authorized to fish for swordfish and tunas with pelagic longline gear
must also possess a tuna longline permit, a swordfish permit (directed
or incidental), and a shark permit (directed or incidental), the
maximum number of vessels potentially affected by this proposed rule is
235 (i.e., the number of tuna longline permits issued), although only
about 60 percent of these permit holders are considered active (i.e.,
reported logbook landings) in the fishery. The addresses of these
permit holders range from Texas through Maine, with Florida (74),
Louisiana (42), New Jersey (33), New York (17), North Carolina (11),
and Texas (10) representing the states with the most permitted HMS
pelagic longline vessels.
Other sectors of HMS fisheries such as dealers, processors, bait
houses and gear manufacturers might be indirectly affected by the
proposed alternatives, particularly the shift to required circle hooks
and bait types, and the required turtle bycatch mitigation gears.
However, the proposed rule does not apply directly to them. Rather it
applies only to permit holders and fishermen. As such, economic impacts
on these other sectors are discussed in the DSEIS, but were not the
focus of the IRFA.
The proposed regulations do not contain additional reporting or
record-keeping requirements, but will result in additional compliance
requirements, including the possession and use of specific hook types,
baits, and sea turtle release equipment. In addition, certain specific
protocols regarding the proper use of sea turtle release equipment and
onboard turtle handling procedures are proposed to be implemented. A
document containing the sea turtle careful release protocols will be
issued, and will be required to be onboard. NMFS does not believe that the
[[Page 6627]]
proposed regulations would conflict with any other relevant
regulations, Federal or otherwise (5 U.S.C. 603(b)(5)).
NMFS considered 16 alternatives in developing the DSEIS. The
alternatives included: no action (Alternative A1), hook and bait
modifications outside the NED (Alternatives A2 - A5), reopening the NED
without hook and bait restrictions (Alternative A6), reopening the NED
with hook and bait modifications (Alternatives A7 - A10), a total
prohibition on pelagic longline gear in Atlantic HMS fisheries
(Alternative A11), pelagic longline time and area closures
(Alternatives A12 - A15), and sea turtle careful handling protocols and
release gear design standards (Alternative A16).
The following alternatives are currently preferred: Alternative A3
(limit pelagic longline vessels fishing outside the NED, at all times,
to possessing on board and/or using only one of the following
combinations of hooks and bait: (i)18/0 or larger circle hooks with an
offset not to exceed 10 degrees and whole mackerel bait; or, (ii) 18/0
or larger non-offset (flat) circle hooks and squid bait); Alternative
A10 (reopen the NED to pelagic longline fishing and limit pelagic
longline vessels fishing in the NED, at all times, to possessing on
board and/or using only one of the following combinations of hooks and
bait: (i) 18/0 or larger circle hook with an offset not to exceed 10
degrees with whole mackerel bait; or, (ii) 18/0 or larger non-offset
(flat) circle hook with squid bait); and Alternative A16 (require
pelagic longline vessels to possess and use dipnets and line clippers
meeting newly revised design standards, require additional sea turtle
release equipment meeting minimum design standards, and require
compliance with new sea turtle handling and release protocols).
For the purpose of this analysis, NMFS assumed that industry would
choose to fish with an 18/0 hook (either offset or non-offset), and not
with a larger hook, although that would be allowed. NMFS expects that
the proposed circle hook and bait requirements (Alternatives A3 and
A10) will increase compliance costs initially, but will result in long-
term cost savings through lower replacement costs and, possibly, fewer
lost hooks. An informal survey of gear suppliers indicated that large
commercial grade 18/0 circle hooks cost approximately $0.26 to $0.66
per hook, with an average of $0.42 per hook. Assuming an average of
2,500 hooks per vessel are needed for one trip to initially comply with
the proposed hook requirement, the compliance cost, on a per vessel
basis, would range from $657.25 to $1,650.00, with an anticipated
average per vessel cost of approximately $1,044.00. While fishermen
will incur additional costs initially to purchase new hooks, long-term
savings are anticipated because, on average, traditional ``J''-hooks
are more expensive than circle hooks ($0.57 per hook). Assuming that
vessels do not already possess the required hook type, a high-end
estimate of the cost (every hook lost on every set, no hook used more
than once during the year) to re-rig the entire Atlantic pelagic
longline fleet is $2.98 million (7,150,602 hooks fished in 2002 x
$0.4176 per hook). The cost per vessel would be approximately $20,176
per vessel for a year's worth of hooks ($2,986,091/148 vessels). This,
however, is likely to be an overestimate of the true costs because not
every hook is expected to be lost on every set. Further, NMFS
anticipates a cost savings of approximately 27 percent annually versus
rigging with the same number of ``J''-hooks.
The proposed circle hook and bait alternatives (A3 and A10) are not
expected to increase the needed skill level required for HMS fisheries,
as the physical act of switching hook types is a normal aspect of
commercial fishing operations. However, using the new circle hooks will
likely require some adaptations to existing skills.
The proposed management measures also require the use of certain
baits. Traditionally, bait accounts for between 16 to 26 percent of the
total costs per trip. Any fluctuations in price and availability of
whole mackerel bait or squid bait could have a substantial impact on
profitability, either positive or negative. There could also be
unquantifiable compliance costs as fishing crews that have not
traditionally fished with a particular hook and bait combination
familiarize themselves with the most efficient techniques. Atlantic
mackerel and squid are generally abundant, but price and availability
will likely depend upon available domestic harvesting and
distributional capacities.
The proposed requirements to possess sea turtle handling and
release equipment, and to use the equipment in accordance with careful
release protocols provided by NMFS (Alternative A16), will impose
initial compliance costs and could require additional skills on behalf
of fishermen. NMFS estimates that the full suite of sea turtle release
gear could cost between $589.00 and $1048.80. Fishermen would be
required to use NMFS-approved gear. See Table 1 for an initial list of
approved gear. However, the design standards would allow fishermen to
construct some of the equipment from material that is readily available
and using skills that most fishermen likely possess. This could
potentially reduce some of the costs. Further, the design standards
were developed in cooperation with the fishing industry during the NED
experiment.
Preferred Alternative A10 (open the NED area to pelagic longline
fishing and limit pelagic longline vessels in that area, at all times,
to possessing on board and/or using only one of the following
combinations of hooks and bait: (i) 18/0 or larger circle hook with an
offset not to exceed 10 degrees with whole mackerel bait; or, (ii) 18/0
or larger non-offset (flat) circle hook with squid bait) is expected to
produce positive economic impacts for vessels that have historically
fished in the NED. Given that pelagic longline vessels cannot currently
fish in the NED, any income derived from future NED trips would result
in positive economic impacts, regardless of any hook and bait
restrictions that vessels may have to comply with in that area.
Based upon traditional levels of effort in the area, NMFS projects
that 12 vessels would likely return to the NED if it is reopened.
Preferred Alternative A10 provides vessels with the flexibility to
select a hook and bait combination, prior to departing on a trip, that
is effective at catching either swordfish or tunas. Based upon the
results of the NED area research experiment, fishermen in the NED may
realize a change in swordfish catches of +15.62 to -30.35 percent (by
weight), depending upon whether they choose to equip and deploy the 18/
0 offset circle hook with whole mackerel bait, or the 18/0 non-offset
circle hook with squid, respectively. Increased catches of swordfish by
weight may be less certain when fishing occurs in warmer ocean
temperatures and may decline to zero, or even result in declining
catches.
Results of the experiment also indicate that fishermen operating in
the NED could experience changes in tuna catches of -83.84 to possibly
as much as +25.26 percent (by weight), depending upon whether they
choose to fish with 18/0 offset circle hook with whole mackerel bait,
or an 18/0 non-offset circle hook with squid, respectively. However,
these potential tuna increases are less certain, based on the limited
tuna catch data obtained during the NED experiment. The experimental
results indicate that when the tested hook and bait combinations have a
positive impact on swordfish catches, they tend to have a negative
impact on tuna catches, and vice versa. To
[[Page 6628]]
maximize revenues, given the impacts of these hook and bait
combinations on swordfish and tuna catches, fishermen operating in the
NED will have to make a decision prior to departing port about which
species they will target, and which hook and bait they will deploy.
If fishermen choose to equip and deploy 18/0 offset circle hooks
with whole mackerel bait in the NED area (Preferred Alternative A10-
option i) to target swordfish, substantial positive economic impacts
are anticipated. Assuming a steady state in all other aspects,
including catches of other species and prices, the proportion of total
landings historically attributable to swordfish could increase from
88.54 percent to the equivalent of 102.37 percent. Assuming that the
projected 15.62-percent increase in the weight of swordfish landed
would result in a 15.62-percent increase in revenues attributable to
swordfish, NMFS believes that overall gross revenues of vessels may
increase by 13.77 percent ($25,753) overall from $187,074 (average
annual vessel gross revenue) to $212,827.
In the IRFA, hook and bait impacts on bigeye tuna catches, as
documented during the NED experiment, are used as a proxy for impacts
on all tuna catches. Assuming a steady state in all other aspects,
including catches of other species and prices, NMFS projects that the
portion of total historical landings attributable to tuna using an 18/0
offset circle hook and whole mackerel bait would decline from 9.85
percent (by weight) to 1.82 percent. Assuming that the projected 84-
percent decrease in the weight of tuna landed would result in an 84-
percent decrease in revenues attributable to tuna, NMFS believes that
overall gross revenues of vessels may decrease by 9.45 percent (-
$17,677) to $169,397. However, tuna catches have traditionally
represented only a limited portion of total gross revenues for vessels
fishing in the NED.
In summary, combining increased swordfish revenues with decreased
tuna revenues, vessels fishing in the NED using an 18/0 offset circle
hook and whole mackerel bait (Preferred Alternative A10 - option i) and
engaging on a mixed target trip could see a total increase in gross
vessel revenues of $8,076, from $187,074 to $195,150. The impact of
this hook and bait combination on shark, dolphin and wahoo catches is
unknown.
If fishermen choose to equip and deploy 18/0 non-offset circle
hooks with squid bait in the NED (Preferred Alternative A10 - option
ii), there would likely be some small positive impact relative to the
status quo, but overall negative economic impacts from a historical
perspective would be expected for fishermen targeting swordfish, or
embarking upon a mixed target species trip in the NED. Fishermen would
likely experience minor increases in revenues associated with tuna
catches from a historical perspective, but these tuna revenue increases
would not be expected to offset overall historical revenue losses
stemming from decreased swordfish landings.
Under Preferred Alternative A10 (option ii), using an 18/0 non-
offset circle hook with squid in the NED, and assuming a steady state
in all other aspects, including catches of other species and prices,
NMFS projects that the portion of landings historically attributable to
swordfish would decline from 88.54 percent (by weight) to 61.67
percent. Assuming that the projected 30.35-percent decrease in the
weight of swordfish landed results in a 30.35-percent decrease in
revenues attributable to swordfish, NMFS believes that overall gross
revenues of vessels may decrease by as much as 26.75 percent ($50,043)
to $137,031.
Assuming a steady state in all other aspects, including catches of
other species and prices, NMFS projects that under Preferred
Alternative A10 (option ii), using an 18/0 non-offset circle hook with
squid, the portion of vessel landings historically attributable to tuna
by weight would increase from 9.85 percent to as much as 12.33 percent.
Assuming that the potential 25.23-percent increase the weight of tuna
landed results in a possible 25.23-percent increase in revenues
attributable to tuna, NMFS believes that overall gross revenues of
vessels may increase by 2.8 percent ($5,318) to $192,392.
In summary, NMFS projects that the overall impact on vessel
revenues of selecting the 18/0 non-offset circle hook and squid bait
combination (Preferred Alternative A10, option ii), and engaging in a
mixed trip in the NED, would result in a loss of gross revenues of
approximately $44,725, thereby reducing annual gross vessel revenues to
$142,394. The impact of this hook and bait combination on shark,
dolphin, and wahoo catches is unknown.
NMFS anticipates that most fishermen will select an 18/0 offset
circle hook with whole mackerel bait (option i) under Preferred
Alternative A10, for trips in the NED area, because most of the fishing
effort in that area has historically targeted swordfish. This preferred
alternative, however, provides fishermen with the additional
flexibility to select gear, prior to departing port, that is effective
at catching tunas, if they choose to engage on a directed tuna trip in
the NED.
Preferred Alternative A10 (both options) is not expected to cause
noticeable changes in the practices or behavior of fishermen, but there
could be minor unquantifiable lost opportunity costs, as compared to
pre-NED closure trips, because fishing crews which have not
traditionally fished with these types of hooks and baits would need to
familiarize themselves with the most efficient techniques. This
alternative would be expected to have positive economic impacts for
fish processors and dealers in the Northeast by providing them with
additional swordfish product. From 1998 to 2000, NED area vessels
landed 21 percent of all swordfish landed by the U.S. Atlantic pelagic
longline fishery.
Preferred Alternative A3 (limit pelagic longline vessels in all
areas open to pelagic longline fishing, excluding the NED, at all
times, to possessing on board and/or using only one of the following
combinations of hooks and bait: (i) 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an
offset not to exceed 10 degrees and whole mackerel bait; or, (ii) 18/0
or larger non-offset (flat) circle hooks and squid bait) could produce
widely varying impacts, either positive or negative, depending upon the
hook and bait combination that is deployed and the target species
chosen by fishermen.
Preferred Alternative A3 provides flexibility to select a hook and
bait combination, prior to departing port, that is effective at
catching either swordfish or tunas, but not both. Based upon the
results of the NED experiment, NMFS projects that fishermen operating
outside the NED may realize a change in swordfish catches of - 30.35 to
+15.62 percent (by weight), depending upon whether they choose to
deploy an 18/0 non-offset circle hook with squid bait, or an 18/0
offset circle hook with whole mackerel bait, respectively. Increased
catches of swordfish by weight may be less certain when fishing occurs
in warmer ocean temperatures and may decline to zero, or even result in
declining catches. Experimental results also indicate that fishermen
operating outside the NED could experience changes in tuna catches
ranging from -83.84 to +25.23 percent (by weight), depending upon
whether they choose to deploy an 18/0 offset circle hook with whole
mackerel bait, or an 18/0 non-offset circle hook with squid bait,
respectively. The potential tuna increases are less certain based on
the limited tuna catch data obtained during the NED experiment. As
mentioned earlier, the experimental results indicate that when the
tested hook and bait
[[Page 6629]]
combinations have a positive impact on swordfish catches they tend to
have a negative impact on tuna catches, and vice-versa. To maximize
revenues, given the impacts of these hook and bait combinations on
swordfish and tuna catches, fishermen will have to make a decision
prior to departing port about which species they will target, and which
gear they will deploy.
If fishermen operating outside the NED choose to deploy 18/0 offset
circle hooks and whole mackerel bait (option i) under Preferred
Alternative 3, positive economic impacts are anticipated for vessels
that are able to successfully target swordfish outside of the NED, and
negative economic impacts are anticipated for those vessels targeting
tunas or engaging in mixed trips outside the NED. As mentioned above,
NED experimental results indicate that this hook and bait combination
may increase swordfish landings by 15.62 percent (weight) and decrease
tuna landings by 83.84 percent (weight), with increased swordfish
catches being less certain in warmer waters.
Using similar assumptions and analyses as set forth for Alternative
A10, NMFS estimates that use of an 18/0 offset circle hook and whole
mackerel bait outside the NED is expected to boost the proportion of
total landings attributable to swordfish, by weight, from 36.22 percent
to 41.88 percent as compared with traditional landings. Assuming that
the estimated 15.6-percent increase in the weight of swordfish landed
will result in a 15.6-percent increase in revenues attributable to
swordfish, NMFS projects that overall gross revenues of vessels may to
increase by 6.8 percent ($12,724) overall to $199,798.
In addition, using a similar analytical approach as with
Alternative A10, NMFS projects that the proportion of total landings
attributable to tuna (weight) outside the NED may decline from 58.63
percent to 9.47 percent using an 18/0 offset circle hook and whole
mackerel bait (option i). Assuming that the estimated 84-percent
decrease in the weight of tuna landed results in an 84-percent decrease
in revenues attributable to tunas, overall annual gross vessel revenues
could decrease by 45.13 percent ($84,430) to $102,644. Given that the
average ex-vessel price for swordfish is higher than for tunas (except
for bluefin) in all areas except the Mid-Atlantic Region (which
represents only 1.08 percent of non-NED landings, by weight), choosing
to fish with an 18/0 offset circle hook with whole mackerel bait
outside of the NED could have positive economic impacts for vessels
that are able to successfully target swordfish. However, many vessels
may not be able to successfully catch swordfish in numbers that are
sufficient to offset lost tuna revenues, particularly in the Gulf of
Mexico where yellowfin tuna landings dominate catches. For these
vessels, negative economic impacts would be expected. The impact of
this hook and bait combination on shark, dolphin, and wahoo catches is
unknown, and, therefore, unquantifiable.
In aggregate, under Preferred Alternative A3 (option i), vessels
fishing with an 18/0 offset circle hook with whole mackerel bait
outside the NED could see a possible change in total revenues ranging
from -$84,430 to +$12,724, depending upon target species, with an
average total estimated change for mixed trips of -$71,706, with annual
vessel gross revenues declining from $187,074 to $115,368.
If fishermen outside the NED choose to deploy 18/0 non-offset
circle hooks with squid bait, under Preferred Alternative A3 (option
ii), there would likely be negative economic impacts for fishermen
targeting swordfish, negative economic impacts for vessels undertaking
mixed target (tunas and swordfish) trips, and positive economic impacts
for vessels specifically targeting tunas.
Using similar assumptions and analyses as Alternative A10, NMFS
expects that Alternative A3 (option ii - 18/0 non-offset circle hooks
with squid bait) could reduce the percentage of landings historically
attributable to swordfish by 30.35 percent, from 36.22 percent down to
25.23 percent. If this 30.35-percent decline in the weight of swordfish
landed results in a 30.35- percent decline in revenues attributable to
swordfish, NMFS projects that overall gross vessel revenues would
decrease by 13.22 percent ($24,726) to $162,347.
With regard to tunas, NMFS projects that using 18/0 non-offset
circle hooks with squid bait outside the NED would potentially increase
the portion of landings historically attributable to tuna by as much as
25.23 percent (by weight), from 58.63 percent to 73.42 percent, thus
resulting in an increase in overall gross vessel revenues of 13.77
percent ($25,757) to $212,831.
In summary, combining projected changes in swordfish and tuna
landings and their associated revenues outside the NED under Preferred
Alternative A3, option ii (18/0 non-offset circle hooks with squid
bait), NMFS projects total vessel gross revenue changes of between -
$24,726 to +$25,757, with an average total estimated change for mixed
trips (under option ii, Alternative 3) of approximately +$1,031. This
would result in an increase in total annual gross vessel revenues to
$188,105.
Under Alternative A3 (both options i and ii, in aggregate), for
those vessels outside the NED that are able to successfully target
swordfish or tunas, and which equip and deploy with the most efficient
hook and bait combination available for a chosen target species,
average gross vessel revenues may increase between $12,724 and $25,757,
respectively. These potential increases are likely to be overestimates,
but they provide an estimated range of annual gross vessel revenues of
between $199,798 and $212,831, respectively. For vessels that are not
able to specifically target swordfish or tunas and which engage in
mixed species trips outside the NED, NMFS estimates that the aggregate
impact of Alternative A3 would be to change annual gross vessel
revenues by between -$71,706 (18/0 offset circle hook with mackerel
bait) and +$1,031 (18/0 non-offset circle hook with squid), thereby
providing a range of annual gross vessel revenues of between $115,368
and $188,105. The actual impacts are most likely to fall between these
ranges, because some vessels would be able to target specific species
and not every vessel would choose the same hook and bait combination
for every trip. The impacts of these hook and bait combinations on
shark, dolphin, and wahoo catches are unknown and, thus, cannot be
quantified.
In summary, Preferred Alternative A3 (both options) could cause
some HMS pelagic longline vessels, operating outside of the NED, to
change fishing practices and to target either swordfish specifically in
some areas, or tunas specifically in other areas. NMFS expects that
vessels would likely avoid mixed tuna-swordfish trips, to the extent
practicable, where profits are most likely to be reduced. As a result,
there could be changes in the geographic distribution of the HMS
pelagic longline fleet, and some vessels may choose to exit the fishery
altogether. Changes in fishing patterns could result in vessels having
to travel greater distances to reach more favorable fishing grounds,
thereby resulting in increased fuel, bait, ice, and labor costs. A
potential shift in fishing grounds, should it occur, could also result
in fishermen selecting new ports for offloading. The economic impact
resulting from changes in fishing locations on fishermen, ports of
landing, dealers, processors, and suppliers could be detrimental to
some areas. Also, changes in hook and bait costs could occur, either
positive or negative,
[[Page 6630]]
depending upon prices and availability. There could also be
unquantifiable lost opportunity costs as fishing crews become familiar
with the most efficient techniques for using new gear.
One of the requirements of an IRFA is to describe any alternatives
to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives and which
minimize any significant economic impacts (5 U.S.C. 603 (c)).
Additionally, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 (c)(1) -
(4)) lists four categories for alternatives that should be discussed.
These categories are: (1) establishment of differing compliance or
reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2) clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting
requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) use of
performance rather than design standards; and (4) exemptions from
coverage of the rule for small entities.
As noted earlier, NMFS considers all permit holders to be small
entities. In order to meet the objectives of this proposed rule,
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, ATCA, and the ESA, NMFS
cannot exempt small entities or change the reporting requirements only
for small entities. Additionally, many of the proposed measures, such
as circle hook and bait requirements, and sea turtle release gear
requirements, would not be as effective with different compliance
requirements. Moreover, the physical act of changing hook types is not
expected to impose a significant compliance burden, as this is a normal
aspect of commercial fishing operations. The initial compliance cost to
purchase new hooks is expected to be approximately $1,044.00. The
requirement to possess and utilize sea turtle release equipment
according to prescribed design standards and usage protocols (Preferred
Alternative A16) will also impose a compliance burden. Compliance costs
for the required release gear are expected to range from approximately
$589.00 to $1048.80. However, as noted above, the design standards
would allow fishermen to construct some of the equipment from material
that is readily available and using skills that most fishermen likely
possess, thus potentially reducing some of the costs. Such gear is
necessary to release sea turtles effectively with minimal harm or
injury.
In summary, the management measures would not be as effective with
different compliance requirements or exemptions for small entities.
Thus, there are no alternatives discussed which fall under the first
and fourth categories described above. Alternatives under the second
and third categories, and other alternatives considered in the DSEIS,
are discussed below.
The preferred alternatives for bycatch reduction and bycatch
mortality mitigation (A3, A10 and A16) were designed to reduce sea
turtle interactions and the mortality associated with such interactions
to levels that will allow compliance with the ESA, while minimizing
adverse economic impacts to the extent practicable. The economic
impacts of the preferred alternatives were previously discussed above.
Alternative A1 (no action) would not achieve the biological goals
of the proposed rule or ensure compliance with the ESA. Further, the
no-action alternative would allow the full adverse economic impacts of
the NED closure to be realized, given the termination of the NED
research experiment and its attendant economic benefits.
Alternative A2 (limit pelagic longline vessels in all areas open to
pelagic longline fishing, excluding the NED, at all times, to
possessing on board and/or using only 18/0 or larger circle hooks with
an offset not to exceed 10 degrees and whole mackerel bait) would
increase adverse economic impacts on fishermen, as compared to the
proposed measures, because it would limit their flexibility in
selecting a more efficient hook and bait treatment for use in targeting
tunas. As such, those fishermen operating outside the NED that are not
able to successfully target swordfish would be adversely impacted to a
greater extent, compared to the proposed measures, because of losses in
tuna revenues that are anticipated with this hook and bait treatment.
Alternative A4 (limit pelagic longline vessels in all areas open to
pelagic longline fishing, excluding the NED, at all times, to
possessing on board and/or using only one of the following combinations
of hooks and bait: (i) 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not
to exceed 10 degrees and whole mackerel bait; or, (ii) 18/0 or larger
non-offset circle hooks and squid bait; or, (iii) 9/0 ``J''-hooks with
an offset not to exceed 25 degrees and whole mackerel bait) would have
either greater or lesser adverse economic impacts than the preferred
alternatives, depending upon the hook and bait combination chosen and
the target species. However, this alternative would not achieve the
biological objective of reducing the mortality of incidentally-caught
sea turtles. As discussed in the DSEIS, interactions with ``J''-hooks
have a higher incidence of deep hooking, and tend to result in more
serious injuries of sea turtles. This alternative would likely result
in a higher post-release mortality rate of sea turtles, because it
would allow the use of ``J''-hooks.
Alternative A5 (limit vessels with pelagic longline gear onboard,
at all times, in all areas open to pelagic longline fishing excluding
the NED, to possessing onboard and/or using only 16/0 or larger circle
hooks with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees) would not, by itself,
achieve the biological objectives of the proposed rule. Alternative A5
would likely have minor to moderate adverse economic impacts on
fishermen, given potential decreases in swordfish catch.
Alternative A6 (allow pelagic longline fishing for Atlantic HMS in
the NED), would be expected to have positive economic benefits, but
would not meet the biological objectives of this rulemaking, or ensure
compliance with the ESA.
Alternative A7, which would reopen the NED to pelagic longline
fishing and limit vessels in that area, at all times, to possessing on
board and/or using only 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not
to exceed 10 degrees and whole mackerel bait, would have positive
social and economic effects, as compared to the status quo or
historical economic impacts. However, compared to Preferred Alternative
A10, it would limit the ability of fishermen to efficiently target
swordfish or tunas because it would allow only a single hook and bait
in the area. Also, this alternative, by itself, would not achieve the
biological objective of the proposed rule.
Alternative A8, which would reopen the NED to pelagic longline
fishing and limit pelagic longline vessels in that area, at all times,
to possessing on board and/or using only 20/0 or larger circle hooks
with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees and whole mackerel bait, would
be effective at reducing sea turtle interactions and would have
positive social and economic benefits over the status quo, but would
have minor adverse economic impacts when viewed historically.
Alternative A8, if selected, would have a greater adverse impact on
revenues associated with landings of tuna and a less positive impact on
revenues associated with landings of swordfish than Preferred
Alternative A10.
Alternative A9 (reopen the NED to pelagic longline fishing and
limit pelagic longline vessels in that area, at all times, to
possessing on board and/or using only one of the following hook and
bait combinations at anytime: (i) 9/0 ``J''-hook with an offset not to
exceed 25 degrees and whole mackerel bait; or, (ii) 18/0 or larger
circle hook with an offset not to exceed 10 degrees with
[[Page 6631]]
whole mackerel bait) could provide greater positive economic impacts
than the proposed measures in Alternative A10, however, as with
Alternative A4, allowing the use of ``J''-hooks under this alternative
would not achieve the biological objective of reducing the mortality of
incidentally-caught sea turtles.
Alternative A11 (prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear in all
Atlantic HMS fisheries) would achieve the biological objectives of this
proposed rulemaking. However, this alternative would impose the most
adverse economic impacts of all the alternatives considered.
Alternative A12 (close the Gulf of Mexico west of 88 degrees W.
Long., year-round) would have adverse economic impacts on a distinct
geographic segment of the fishery, and would not, by itself, achieve
the biological goals of this proposed rulemaking.
Alternative A13 (prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear in an
area of the central Gulf of Mexico, year-round) would likely have
substantial economic impacts on a large and distinct geographic segment
of the U.S. pelagic longline fleet, communities, buyers, and dealers in
the Gulf of Mexico. Available data indicate that potential increases in
catches of swordfish and bigeye tuna of 17 and 32 percent (numbers of
fish), respectively, and a decrease in swordfish catches of two percent
(numbers of fish) could occur a result of this closure. However, the
actual impacts are unknown because potential changes in weight of
landings are unknown. Nevertheless, NMFS anticipates that the overall
economic impacts of a closure of this size would likely be adverse.
Because a high percentage of historical fishing effort has been located
in this alternative's closure area, a substantial number of fishing
vessels would likely have to adjust their fishing practices. Because of
a projected increase in loggerhead sea turtle interactions associated
with a relocation of fishing effort, Alternative A13 would not, by
itself, achieve the biological goals of the proposed rule.
Alternative A14 (prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear in HMS
fisheries in areas of the Central Gulf of Mexico and the Northeast
Coastal (NEC) statistical reporting areas, year-round) would likely
have substantial adverse economic impacts on a large and distinct
segment of the U.S. pelagic longline fleet that fishes in the GOM and
NEC, as well as associated communities, buyers, and seafood dealers.
NMFS' analysis indicates that swordfish and bigeye tuna catches could
potentially increase 18 and 33 percent (numbers of fish), respectively,
and catches of yellowfin tuna could potentially decrease by two percent
(numbers of fish). However, the actual impacts are unknown because
changes in the weight of landings are unknown. Because a high
percentage of the fishing effort has been located in these potential
closure areas, a substantial number of fishing vessels would have to
adjust their fishing practices accordingly. Further, this alternative
by itself would not achieve the biological objectives of this proposed
rule.
Alternative A15 (prohibit the use of pelagic longline gear in HMS
Fisheries in areas of the central GOM and NEC, from May through
October), similar to Alternative A14, would likely also have
substantial adverse economic impacts on a large and distinct segment of
the U.S. pelagic longline fleet that fishes in the GOM and NEC, as well
as associated communities, buyers, and dealers. NMFS' analysis
indicates, as a result of the closure in this alternative, swordfish,
yellowfin tuna, and bigeye tuna catches could potentially increase five
percent, three percent, and 17 percent (numbers of fish), respectively.
However, the actual impacts are unknown because potential changes in
the weight of landings are not known. Because a high percentage of the
fishing effort has been located in the areas considered for the time/
area closures, a substantial number of fishing vessels would have to
adjust their fishing practices accordingly. Further, this alternative
by itself would not achieve the biological objectives of proposed rule.
Although Alternatives A5, A7, A14, and A15 would not, independent
of one another, sufficiently reduce sea turtle interactions to ensure
compliance with the ESA, a suite of these alternatives (A5, A7, and
A14; or A5, A7, and A15) would achieve the necessary sea turtle
reductions, if combined. The combined economic impacts of these suites
of alternatives, however, would be expected to impose greater adverse
economic impacts than the alternatives being proposed.
This proposed rule does not contain any new reporting or
recordkeeping requirements.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects
50 CFR Part 223
Endangered and threatened species, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing
vessels.
50 CFR Part 635
Endangered and threatened species, Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing
vessels, Foreign relations, Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Statistics, Treaties.
Dated: February 5, 2004.
Rebecca J. Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine
Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 223 and 635
are proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 223--THREATENED MARINE AND ANADROMOUS SPECIES
1. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.
2. In Sec. 223.206, paragraph (d)(1)(ii) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 223.206 Exceptions to prohibitions relating to sea turtles.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) In addition to the provisions of paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this
section, a person aboard a pelagic longline vessel in the Atlantic
issued an Atlantic permit for highly pelagic species under 50 CFR
635.4, must follow the handling requirements in 50 CFR 635.21.
* * * * *
PART 635--ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES
1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 635.2, the definition for ``Northeast Distant closed
area'' is removed, and new definitions for ``Circle hook'' and ``Offset
circle hook'' are added alphabetically to read as follows:
Sec. 635.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Circle hook means a fishing hook with the point turned
perpendicularly back to the shank.
* * * * *
Offset circle hook means a circle hook in which the barbed end of
the hook is displaced relative to the parallel plane of the eyed-end,
or shank, of the hook when laid on its side.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 635.21, paragraph (c)(2)(v) is removed; paragraphs
(a)(3), (c)(5)(i), and (c)(5)(ii) are revised; and paragraphs
(c)(5)(iii)(C) and (c)(5)(iv) are added to read as follows:
[[Page 6632]]
Sec. 635.21 Gear operation and deployment restrictions.
(a) * * *
(3) Operators of all vessels that have pelagic or bottom longline
gear on board and that have been issued, or are required to have, a
limited access swordfish, shark, or tuna longline category permit for
use in the Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of
Mexico must possess, inside the wheelhouse, a document provided by NMFS
entitled, ``Careful Release Protocols for Release with Minimal Injury''
and must post inside the wheelhouse the sea turtle handling and release
guidelines provided by NMFS.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(5) * * *
(i) Possession and use of required mitigation gear. Required sea
turtle bycatch mitigation gear, which NMFS has approved under paragraph
635.21(c)(5)(iv) of this section as meeting the minimum design
standards specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) through (c)(5)(i)(L) of
this section, must be carried on board, and must be used to disengage
any hooked or entangled sea turtles in accordance with the handling
requirements specified in paragraph (c)(5)(ii) of this section.
(A) Long-handled line clipper or cutter. Line cutters are intended
to cut high test monofilament line as close as possible to the hook,
and assist in removing line from entangled sea turtles to minimize any
remaining gear upon release. NMFS has established minimum design
standards for the line cutters. The LaForce line cutter and the
Arceneaux line clipper are models that meet these minimum design
standards, and may be purchased or fabricated from readily available
and low-cost materials. One long-handled line clipper or cutter and a
set of replacement blades are required to be onboard. The minimum
design standards for line cutters are as follows:
(1) A protected and secured cutting blade. The cutting blade(s)
must be capable of cutting 2.0-2.1 mm (0.078 in. - 0.083 in.)
monofilament line (400-lb test) or polypropylene multistrand material,
known as braided or tarred mainline, and should be maintained in
working order. The cutting blade must be curved, recessed, contained in
a holder, or otherwise designed to facilitate its safe use so that
direct contact between the cutting surface and the sea turtle or the
user is prevented. The cutting instrument must be securely attached to
an extended reach handle and easily replaced. One extra set of
replacement blades meeting these standards must also be carried on
board to replace all cutting surfaces on the line cutter or clipper.
(2) An extended reach handle. The line cutter blade must be
securely fastened to an extended reach handle or pole with a minimum
length equal to, or greater than, 150 percent of the freeboard, or a
minimum of 6 feet (1.83 m), whichever is greater. Freeboard is defined
as the working distance between the top rail of the gunwale to the
water's surface, and will vary based on the vessel design. It is
recommended, but not required, that the handle break down into
sections. There is no restriction on the type of material used to
construct this handle as long as it is sturdy and facilitates the
secure attachment of the cutting blade.
(B) Long-handled dehooker for ingested hooks. A long-handled
dehooking device is intended to remove ingested hooks from sea turtles
that cannot be boated. It should also be used to engage a loose hook
when a turtle is entangled but not hooked, and line is being removed.
The design must shield the barb of the hook and prevent it from re-
engaging during the removal process. One long-handled device to remove
ingested hooks is required onboard. The minimum design standards are as
follows:
(1) Hook removal device. The hook removal device must be
constructed of 5/16-inch (7.94 mm) 316 L stainless steel and have a
dehooking end no larger than 1 7/8-inches (4.76 cm) outside diameter.
The device must securely engage and control the leader while shielding
the barb to prevent the hook from re-engaging during removal. It may
not have any unprotected terminal points (including blunt ones), as
these could cause injury to the esophagus during hook removal. The
device must be of a size appropriate to secure the range of hook sizes
and styles observed to date in the pelagic longline fishery targeting
swordfish and tuna, or those having some possibility for use in the
future (7/0-11/0 J hooks and 14/0-22/0 circle hooks).
(2) Extended reach handle. The dehooking end must be securely
fastened to an extended reach handle or pole with a minimum length
equal or greater than 150 percent of the freeboard, or a minimum of 6
ft (1.83 m), whichever is greater. Freeboard is defined as the working
distance between the top rail of the gunwale to the water's surface,
and will vary based on the vessel design. It is recommended, but not
required, that the handle break down into sections. The handle must be
sturdy and strong enough to facilitate the secure attachment of the
hook removal device.
(C) Long-handled dehooker for external hooks. A long-handled
dehooker is required for use on externally-hooked sea turtles that
cannot be boated. The long-handled dehooker for ingested hooks
described in paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B) of this section would meet this
requirement. The minimum design standards are as follows:
(1) Construction. A long-handled dehooker must be constructed of 5/
16-inch (7.94 mm) 316 L stainless steel rod. A 5-inch (12.7-cm) tube T-
handle of 1-inch (2.54 cm) outside diameter is recommended, but not
required. The design should be such that a fish hook can be rotated
out, without pulling it out at an angle. The dehooking end must be
blunt with all edges rounded. The device must be of a size appropriate
to secure the range of hook sizes and styles observed to date in the
pelagic longline fishery targeting swordfish and tuna, or those having
some possibility for use in the future (7/0-11/0 J hooks and 14/0-22/0
circle hooks).
(2) Handle length. The handle must be a minimum length equal to the
freeboard of the vessel or 3 ft (0.914 m), whichever is greater.
Freeboard is defined as the working distance between the top rail of
the gunwale to the water's surface, and will vary based on the vessel
design.
(D) Long-handled device to pull an ``inverted V''. This tool is
used to pull a ``V'' in the fishing line when implementing the
``inverted V'' dehooking technique, as described in the ``Careful
Release Protocols'' document required under paragraph (a)(3) of this
section, for disentangling and dehooking entangled sea turtles. One
long-handled device to pull an ``inverted V'' is required onboard. If a
6-ft (1.83 m) J-style dehooker is used to comply with paragraph
(C)(5)(i)(C) of this section, it will also satisfy this requirement.
Minimum design standards are as follows:
(1) Hook end. This device, such as a standard boat hook or gaff,
must be constructed of stainless steel or aluminum. A sharp point, such
as on a gaff hook, is to be used only for holding the monofilament
fishing line and should never contact the sea turtle.
(2) Handle length. The handle must have a minimum length equal to,
or greater than, 150 percent of the freeboard, or a minimum of 6 ft
(1.83 m), whichever is greater. Freeboard is defined as the working
distance between the top rail of the gunwale to the water's surface,
and will vary based on the vessel design. The handle must
[[Page 6633]]
be sturdy and strong enough to facilitate the secure attachment of the
gaff hook.
(E) Dipnet. One dipnet is required onboard. Dipnets are to be used
to facilitate safe handling of sea turtles by allowing them to be
brought onboard for fishing gear removal, without causing further
injury to the animal. Turtles should never be brought onboard without a
dipnet. The minimum design standards for dipnets are as follows:
(1) Size of dipnet. The dipnet must have a sturdy net hoop of at
least 31 inches (78.74 cm) inside diameter and a bag depth of at least
38 inches (96.52 cm) to accommodate turtles below 3 ft (0.914
m)carapace length. The bag mesh openings may not exceed 3 inches (7.62
cm) x 3 inches (7.62 cm). There must be no sharp edges or burrs on the
hoop, or where it is attached to the handle.
(2) Extended reach handle. The dipnet hoop must be securely
fastened to an extended reach handle or pole with a minimum length
equal to, or greater than, 150 percent of the freeboard, or at least 6
ft (1.83 m), whichever is greater. Freeboard is defined as the working
distance between the top rail of the gunwale to the water's surface,
and will vary based on the vessel design. The handle must made of a
rigid material strong enough to facilitate the sturdy attachment of the
net hoop and able to support a minimum of 100 lbs (34.1 kg) without
breaking or significant bending or distortion. It is recommended, but
not required, that the extended reach handle break down into sections.
(F) Tire. A minimum of one tire is required for supporting a turtle
in an upright orientation while it is onboard, although an assortment
of sizes is recommended to accommodate a range of turtle sizes. The
required tire must be a standard passenger vehicle tire, and must be
free of exposed steel belts.
(G) Short-handled dehooker for ingested hooks. One short-handled
device for removing ingested hooks is required onboard. This dehooker
is designed to remove ingested hooks from boated sea turtles. It can
also be used on external hooks or hooks in the front of the mouth.
Minimum design standards are as follows:
(1) Hook removal device. The hook removal device must be
constructed of 1/4-inch (6.35 mm) 316 L stainless steel, and must allow
the hook to be secured and the barb shielded without re-engaging during
the removal process. It must be no larger than 1 5/16 inch (3.33 cm)
outside diameter. It may not have any unprotected terminal points
(including blunt ones), as this could cause injury to the esophagus
during hook removal. A sliding PVC bite block must be used to protect
the beak and facilitate hook removal if the turtle bites down on the
dehooking device. The bite block should be constructed of a 3/4 inch
(1.91 cm) inside diameter high impact plastic cylinder (e.g., Schedule
80 PVC) that is 10 inches (25.4 cm) long to allow for 5 inches (12.7
cm) of slide along the shaft. The device must be of a size appropriate
to secure the range of hook sizes and styles observed to date in the
pelagic longline fishery targeting swordfish and tuna, or those having
some possibility for use in the future (7/0-11/0 J hooks and 14/0-22/0
circle hooks).
(2) Handle length. The handle should be approximately 16 - 24
inches (40.64 cm - 60.69 cm) in length, with approximately a 5-inch
(12.7 cm) long tube T-handle of approximately 1 inch (2.54 cm) in
diameter.
(H) Short-handled dehooker for external hooks. One short-handled
dehooker for external hooks is required onboard. The short-handled
dehooker for ingested hooks required to comply with paragraph
(c)(5)(i)(G) of this section will also satisfy this requirement.
Minimum design standards are as follows:
(1) Hook removal device. The dehooker must be constructed of 5/16-
inch (7.94 cm) 316 L stainless steel, and the design must be such that
a hook can be rotated out without pulling it out at an angle. The
dehooking end must be blunt, and all edges rounded. The device must be
of a size appropriate to secure the range of hook sizes and styles
observed to date in the pelagic longline fishery targeting swordfish
and tuna, or those having some possibility for use in the future (7/0-
11/0 J hooks and 14/0-22/0 circle hooks).
(2) Handle length. The handle should be approximately 16 - 24
inches (40.64 cm - 60.69 cm) long with approximately a 5-inch (12.7 cm)
long tube T-handle of approximately 1 inch (2.54 cm) in diameter.
(I) Long-nose or needle-nose pliers. One pair of long-nose or
needle-nose pliers is required on board. Required long-nose or needle-
nose pliers can be used to remove deeply embedded hooks from the
turtle's flesh that must be twisted during removal. They can also hold
PVC splice couplings, when used as mouth openers, in place. Minimum
design standards are as follows:
(1) General. They must be approximately 12 inches (30.48 cm) in
length, and should be constructed of stainless steel material.
(2) [Reserved]
(J) Bolt cutters. One pair of bolt cutters is required on board.
Required bolt cutters may be used to cut hooks to facilitate their
removal. They should be used to cut off the eye or barb of a hook, so
that it can safely be pushed through a sea turtle without causing
further injury. They should also be used to cut off as much of the hook
as possible, when the remainder of the hook cannot be removed. Minimum
design standards are as follows:
(1) General. They must be approximately 17 inches (43.18 cm) in
total length, with 4-inch (10.16 cm) long blades that are 2 1/4 inches
(5.72 cm) wide, when closed, and with 13-inch (33.02 cm) long handles.
Required bolt cutters must be able to cut hard metals, such as
stainless or carbon steel hooks, up to 1/4-inch (6.35 mm) diameter.
(2) [Reserved]
(K) Monofilament line cutters. One pair of monofilament line
cutters is required on board. Required monofilament line cutters must
be used to remove fishing line as close to the eye of the hook as
possible, if the hook is swallowed or cannot be removed. Minimum design
standards are as follows:
(1) General. Monofilament line cutters must be approximately 7 1/2
inches (19.05 cm) in length. The blades must be 1 3/4 in (4.45 cm) in
length and 5/8 in (1.59 cm) wide, when closed, and are recommended to
be coated with Teflon (a trademark owned by E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
Company Corp.).
(2) [Reserved]
(L) Mouth openers/mouth gags. Required mouth openers and mouth gags
are used to open sea turtle mouths, and to keep them open when removing
ingested hooks from boated turtles. They must allow access to the hook
or line without causing further injury to the turtle. Design standards
are included in the item descriptions. At least two of the seven
different types of mouth openers/gags described below are required:
(1) A block of hard wood. Placed in the corner of the jaw, a block
of hard wood may be used to gag open a turtle's mouth. A smooth block
of hard wood of a type that does not splinter (e.g. maple) with rounded
edges should be sanded smooth, if necessary, and soaked in water to
soften the wood. The dimensions should be approximately 11 inches
(27.94 cm) 1 inch (2.54 cm) 1 inch (2.54 cm). A long-handled, wire shoe
brush with a wooden handle, and with the wires removed, is an
inexpensive, effective and practical mouth-opening device that meets
these requirements.
(2) A set of three canine mouth gags. Canine mouth gags are highly
recommended to hold a turtle's mouth
[[Page 6634]]
open, because the gag locks into an open position to allow for hands-
free operation after it is in place. A set of canine mouth gags must
include one of each of the following sizes: small (5 inches) (12.7 cm),
medium (6 inches) (15.24 cm), and large (7 inches) (17.78 cm). They
must be constructed of stainless steel. A 1 3/4 inch (4.45 cm) piece of
vinyl tubing (3/4-inch (1.91 cm) outside diameter and 5/8-inch (1.59
cm) inside diameter) must be placed over the ends to protect the
turtle's beak.
(3) A set of two sturdy dog chew bones. Placed in the corner of a
turtle's jaw, canine chew bones are used to gag open a sea turtle's
mouth. Required canine chews must be constructed of durable nylon,
zylene resin, or thermoplastic polymer, and strong enough to withstand
biting without splintering. To accommodate a variety of turtle beak
sizes, a set must include one large (5 1/2 - 8 inches (13.97 cm - 20.32
cm) in length), and one small (3 1/2 - 4 1/2 inches (8.89 cm - 11.43
cm) in length) canine chew bones.
(4) A set of two rope loops covered with hose. A set of two rope
loops covered with a piece of hose can be used as a mouth opener, and
to keep a turtle's mouth open during hook and/or line removal. A
required set consists of two 3-foot (0.91 m) lengths of poly braid rope
(3/8-inch (9.52 mm) diameter suggested), each covered with an 8-inch
(20.32 cm) section of 1/2 inch (1.27 cm) or 3/4 inch (1.91 cm) light-
duty garden hose, and each tied into a loop. The upper loop of rope
covered with hose is secured on the upper beak to give control with one
hand, and the second piece of rope covered with hose is secured on the
lower beak to give control with the user's foot.
(5) A hank of rope. Placed in the corner of a turtle's jaw, a hank
of rope can be used to gag open a sea turtle's mouth. A 6-foot (1.83 m)
lanyard of approximately 3/16-inch (4.76 mm) braided nylon rope may be
folded to create a hank, or looped bundle, of rope. Any size soft-
braided nylon rope is allowed is allowed, however it must create a hank
of approximately 2 - 4 inches (5.08 cm - 10.16 cm) in thickness.
(6) A set of four PVC splice couplings. PVC splice couplings can be
positioned inside a turtle's mouth to allow access to the back of the
mouth for hook and line removal. They are to be held in place with the
needle-nose pliers. To ensure proper fit and access, a required set
must consist of the following Schedule 40 PVC splice coupling sizes: 1
inch (2.54 cm), 1 1/4 inch (3.18 cm), 1 1/2 inch (3.81 cm), and 2
inches (5.08 cm).
(7) A large avian oral speculum. A large avian oral speculum
provides the ability to hold a turtle's mouth open and to control the
head with one hand, while removing a hook with the other hand. The
avian oral speculum must be 9-inches (22.86 cm) long, and constructed
of 3/16-inch (4.76 mm) wire diameter surgical stainless steel (Type
304). It must be covered with 8 inches (20.32 cm) of clear vinyl tubing
(5/16-inch (7.9 mm) outside diameter, 3/16-inch (4.76 mm) inside
diameter).
(ii) Handling requirements. (A) Sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear,
as required by paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) - (D) of this section, must be
used to disengage any hooked or entangled sea turtles that cannot be
brought on board. Sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear, as required by
paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(E) - (L) of this section, must be used to
facilitate access, safe handling, disentanglement, and hook removal or
hook cutting of sea turtles that can be brought on board, where
feasible. Sea turtles must be handled, and bycatch mitigation gear must
be used, in accordance with the careful release protocols and handling/
release guidelines specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and
in accordance with the onboard handling and resuscitation requirements
specified in Sec. 223.206(d)(1).
(B) Boated turtles. When practicable, active and comatose sea
turtles must be brought on board, with a minimum of injury, using a
dipnet as required by paragraph (c)(5)(i)(E) of this section. All
turtles less than 3 ft (.91 m) carapace length should be boated, if sea
conditions permit.
(1) For boated turtles, the animal should be placed on a standard
automobile tire, or cushioned surface, in an upright orientation to
immobilize it and facilitate gear removal. Then, determine if the hook
can be removed without causing further injury. All externally embedded
hooks should be removed, unless hook removal would result in further
injury to the turtle. Do not attempt to remove a hook if it has been
swallowed and the insertion point is not visible, or if it is
determined that removal would result in further injury. If a hook
cannot be removed, ensure that as much line as possible is removed from
the turtle using monofilament cutters, and cut the hook as close as
possible to the insertion point using bolt cutters before releasing it.
If a hook can be removed, an effective technique may be to cut off
either the barb, or the eye, of the hook using bolt cutters, and then
to slide the hook out. When the hook is visible in the front of the
mouth, a mouth-opener may facilitate opening the turtle's mouth and a
gag may facilitate keeping the mouth open. Short-handled dehookers for
ingested hooks, or long-nose or needle-nose pliers should be used to
remove visible hooks from the mouth that have not been swallowed on
boated turtles, as appropriate. As much gear as possible must be
removed from the turtle without causing further injury prior to its
release. Refer to the careful release protocols and handling/release
guidelines required in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the
handling and resuscitation requirements specified in Sec.
223.206(d)(1), for additional information.
(2) [Reserved]
(C) Non-boated turtles. If a sea turtle is too large, or hooked in
a manner that precludes safe boarding without causing further damage or
injury to the turtle, sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear required by
paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(A) - (D) of this section should be used to
disentangle sea turtles from fishing gear and disengage any hooks, or
to clip the line and remove as much line as possible from a hook that
cannot be removed, prior to releasing the turtle, in accordance with
the protocols specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
(1) For non-boated turtles, bring the animal close to the boat and
provide time for it to calm down. Then, determine if the hook can be
removed without causing further injury. All externally embedded hooks
should be removed, unless hook removal would result in further injury
to the turtle. Do not attempt to remove a hook if it has been
swallowed, or if it is determined that removal would result in further
injury. If the hook cannot be removed and/or if the animal is
entangled, ensure that as much line as possible is removed prior to
release, using the line cutter required at paragraph (c)(5)(i)(A) of
this section. If the hook can be removed, use a long-handled dehooker
as required at paragraphs (c)(5)(i)(B) and (c)(5)(i)(C) of this section
to remove the hook, as appropriate. Always remove as much gear as
possible from the turtle without causing further injury prior to its
release. Refer to the careful release protocols and handling/release
guidelines required in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, and the
handling and resuscitation requirements specified in Sec.
223.206(d)(1), for additional information.
(2) [Reserved]
(iii) * * *
(C) Hook size, type, and bait. Vessels that have pelagic longline
gear on board and that have been issued, or are required to have, a
limited access
[[Page 6635]]
swordfish, shark, or tuna longline category permit for use in the
Atlantic Ocean including the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico are
limited, at all times, to possessing on board and/or using only one of
the following combinations of hooks and bait:
(1) 18/0 or larger circle hooks with an offset not to exceed
10£ and whole Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) bait;
or,
(2) 18/0 or larger non-offset circle hooks and squid bait.
(i) For purposes of paragraphs (c)((5)(iii)(C)(1) and (2) of this
section, the outer diameter of an 18/0 circle hook at its widest point
must be no smaller than 1.97 inches (50 mm), when measured with the eye
of the hook on the vertical axis (y-axis) and perpendicular to the
horizontal axis (x-axis). The offset in paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(C)(1) of
this section is measured from the barbed end of the hook, and is
relative to the parallel plane of the eyed-end, or shank, of the hook
when laid on its side.
(ii) [Reserved]
(iv) Approval of sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear. NMFS will file
with the Office of the Federal Register for publication an initial list
of required sea turtle bycatch mitigation gear that NMFS has approved
as meeting the minimum design standards specified under paragraph
(c)(5)(i) of this section. Other devices proposed for use as line
clippers or cutters or dehookers, as specified under paragraphs
(c)(5)(i)(A), (B), (C), (G), (H), and (K) of this section, must be
approved as meeting the minimum design standards before being used.
NMFS will examine new devices, as they become available, to determine
if they meet the minimum design standards, and will file with the
Office of the Federal Register for publication notification of any new
devices that are approved as meeting the standards.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 635.71, paragraph (a)(33) is revised as follows:
Sec. 635.71 Prohibitions.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(33) Deploy or fish with any fishing gear from a vessel with
pelagic longline gear on board without carrying the required sea turtle
bycatch mitigation gear, as specified at Sec. 635.21(c)(5)(i).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-2982 Filed 2-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S