Fishery conservation and management: Atlantic highly migratory species Atlantic shark,
[Federal Register: July 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 144)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 41391-41412]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27jy07-16]
[[Page 41391]]
Part II
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 600 and 635
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures; Proposed Rule
[[Page 41392]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Parts 600 and 635
[Docket No. 0612242866-7310-01]
RIN 0648-AU89
Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Atlantic Shark Management Measures
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of the Fishery Management Plan (FMP); request for comments; public hearings.
SUMMARY: NMFS announces the availability of the draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated Highly Migratory Species (HMS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its accompanying proposed rule. Amendment 2 examines different management alternatives available to rebuild sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks, consistent with the 2006 shark stock assessments, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson- Stevens Act), and other applicable law. The proposed rule to implement Amendment 2 would, among other things, allow for a limited shark research fishery for sandbar sharks, establish a trip limit for commercial harvest of non-sandbar large coastal sharks (LCS), prohibit the landing and possession of porbeagle sharks, require all sharks landed to have fins attached through landing, eliminate the regions and trimester seasons, and modify the species that can be landed by recreational fishermen. These changes could affect all fishermen who fish for sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule and draft Amendment 2 must be received no later than 5 p.m. on October 10, 2007.
Ten public hearings on this proposed rule and draft Amendment 2 will be held in August and September 2007. For specific dates and times see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
ADDRESSES: The public hearings will be held in Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Texas. For specific locations see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION of this document.
Written comments on the proposed rule and draft Amendment 2 may be submitted to Michael Clark, Highly Migratory Species Management Division:
Email: ShkA2@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following identifier: Shark amendment 2 comments.
Mail: 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Please mark the outside of the envelope ``Shark amendment 2 comments.''
Fax: 301-713-1917.
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this proposed rule may be submitted to Michael Clark, Highly Migratory Species Management Division and by e-mail to David_Rostker@omb.eop.gov or fax to (202) 395-7285.
Copies of the draft Amendment 2 to the Consolidated HMS FMP, the latest shark stock assessments, and other documents relevant to this rule are available from the Highly Migratory Species Management Division website at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/hms or by contacting Heather
Halter at 301-713-2347.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Clark, Karyl Brewster-Geisz, or LeAnn Southward Hogan at 301-713-2347 or fax 301-713-1917 or Jackie Wilson at 404-806-7622 or fax 404-806-9188.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Atlantic shark fisheries are managed under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Consolidated HMS FMP is implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 635.
Based on the results of the 2005 Canadian porbeagle shark stock assessment, the 2006 dusky shark stock assessment, and the 2005/2006 LCS stock assessment, NMFS has determined that a number of shark fisheries are overfished and an amendment to the current Consolidated HMS FMP is needed to develop management measures to rebuild overfished shark stocks and to prevent overfishing.
Unlike past assessments, the recently completed 2005/2006 LCS stock assessment determined that it is inappropriate to assess the LCS complex as a whole due to the variation in life history parameters, different intrinsic rates of increase, and different catch and abundance data for all species included in the LCS complex. Based on these results, NMFS changed the status of the LCS complex from overfished to unknown (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006).
According to this stock assessment, sandbar sharks are overfished (SSF2004/SSFMSY= 0.72; SSF is spawning stock fecundity and was used a proxy for biomass), and overfishing is occurring (F2004/ FMSY= 3.72). As described in the 2005/2006 stock assessment, spawning stock fecundity, which is the sum of the number of mature females at age times their pup-production, is used instead of biomass because biomass does not influence pup production in sharks. The assessment recommends that rebuilding could be achieved with 70 percent probability by 2070 with a total allowable catch (TAC) across all fisheries that catch sharks of 220 metric tons (mt) whole weight (ww) each year (158 mt dressed weight (dw)) and fishing pressure (F) between 0.0009 and 0.011. The proposed rebuilding plan mirrors the rebuilding plan recommended by the stock assessment.
Based on tagging studies that suggested that the blacktip shark stocks are geographically distinct and isolated, the 2005/2006 stock assessment assessed blacktip sharks for the first time as two separate populations: Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic. NMFS has declared that the Gulf of Mexico blacktip shark population is not overfished with no overfishing occurring (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006). The 2005/2006 stock assessment indicated that the Gulf of Mexico population is healthy and that current catches should not increase in order to keep this population at a sustainable level. For the blacktip shark population in the South Atlantic region, the 2005/2006 assessment was unable to provide estimates of stock status or reliable population projections, but indicated that current catch levels should not change. NMFS has declared that the South Atlantic blacktip shark population is unknown (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006).
In 1999, dusky sharks, which were in the LCS complex, were placed on the prohibited species list due to their low population growth rate and low reproductive potential. In 2003, in Amendment 1 to the FMP for Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish, and Sharks (68 FR 74746, December 24, 2003), NMFS established a mid-Atlantic shark time/area closure to protect dusky sharks and juvenile sandbar sharks. Due to high catch rates of dusky sharks in the shark bottom longline fishery in the mid-Atlantic closed area and the high mortality of dusky sharks on bottom longline gear, NMFS closed this area to bottom longline fishing from January 1 through July 31 of every year, starting in January 2005. NMFS released the first dusky-specific shark assessment in May
[[Page 41393]]
2006 (71 FR 30123, May 25, 2006). The 2006 dusky shark stock assessment used data through 2003 and indicates that dusky sharks are overfished (B2003/BMSY= 0.15 0.47) with overfishing occurring (F2004/FMSY= 1.68 1,810). The assessment indicates that rebuilding for dusky sharks could require 100 to 400 years. Based on these results, NMFS declared the status of dusky sharks as overfished with overfishing occurring (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006). The proposed rule would establish a rebuilding plan to rebuild dusky sharks in 100 to 400 years consistent with the stock assessment. This rebuilding plan includes keeping dusky sharks on the prohibited species list and actions to reduce dusky shark mortality and bycatch, to the extent practicable.
Canada has conducted stock assessments on porbeagle sharks in 1999, 2001, 2003, and 2005. Reduced Canadian porbeagle quotas in 2002 brought the 2004 exploitation rate to a sustainable level. According to the 2005 recovery assessment report conducted by Canada, the North Atlantic porbeagle stock has a 70 percent probability of recovery in approximately 100 years if F is less than or equal to 0.04. To date, the United States has not conducted a stock assessment on porbeagle sharks. NMFS has reviewed the Canadian stock assessment and deems it to be the best available science and appropriate to use for U.S. domestic management purposes because porbeagle sharks are a unit stock that extends into U.S. waters. The Canadian assessment indicates that porbeagle sharks are overfished (SSN2004/ BSSNMSY = 0.15 0.32; SSN is spawning stock number and used as a proxy for biomass). However, the Canadian assessment indicates that overfishing is not occurring (F2004/FMSY= 0.83). Based on these results, NMFS declared porbeagle sharks as overfished, but not experiencing overfishing (71 FR 65086, November 7, 2006). While United States vessels take only a small proportion of the porbeagle sharks harvested in the Northwest Atlantic, NMFS proposes measures to increase the likelihood that fishing mortality remains below 0.04 and rebuilding occurs in 100 years. Because Canada has the largest harvest of porbeagle sharks, the proposed rule would establish a rebuilding plan for porbeagle sharks that is consistent with the Canadian assessment. This rebuilding plan includes placing porbeagle sharks on the prohibited species list to prevent fishing effort from increasing in the future and minimizing porbeagle shark mortality and bycatch, to the extent practicable.
NMFS announced its intent to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS) on November 7, 2006 (71 FR 65086) and held seven scoping meetings in January 2007 (72 FR 123, January 3, 2007). In March 2006, NMFS presented a predraft of the Amendment 2 to the HMS Advisory Panel (72 FR 7860, February 21, 2007). Based in part on the comments received during scoping and from the HMS Advisory Panel, NMFS proposes a number of management measures that would implement Amendment 2. Consistent with the Consolidated HMS FMP objectives, the Magnuson- Stevens Act, and other applicable law, the objectives for this proposed rule are to: (1) implement rebuilding plans for sandbar, dusky, and porbeagle sharks; (2) provide an opportunity for the sustainable harvest of blacktip and other sharks, as appropriate; (3) prevent overfishing of Atlantic sharks; (4) analyze bottom longline time/area closures and take necessary action to maintain or modify the closures, as appropriate; and (5) improve, to the extent practicable, data collections or data collection programs.
In addition to the proposed management alternative described below, NMFS proposes to take additional administrative actions. These include: (1) allowing fishermen to remove hooks from smalltooth sawfish (Sec. 635.21 (d)(3)) based on a March 23, 2007, memorandum from the Office of Protected Resources changing this requirement in the 2003 Biological Opinion for Atlantic sharks; (2) requiring stock assessments at least once every 5 years; (3) allowing for the release of the annual Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation report by fall of each year; and (4) clarifying various existing regulations, for example stating that only the first receiver needs a shark dealer permit and that shark dealer reports must be species-specific.
NMFS prepared a Draft EIS (DEIS) for the draft Amendment 2 that discusses the impact on the environment as a result of this rule. A copy of the DEIS/draft Amendment 2 is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to publish the notice of availability for this DEIS on or about the same date that this proposed rule publishes.
The following is a summary of the alternatives analyzed in the DEIS for Amendment 2. Additional analyses and descriptions are provided in the DEIS. NMFS fully considered five different alternative suites based on the above-described objectives and best available scientific information. Based on the recommendations of the latest stock assessments, significant reductions in quotas are needed to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. The necessary reductions effectively preclude operation of the shark fishery as it has been prosecuted in past years. As reflected below, NMFS has developed alternative suites that would provide for some fishing of sharks consistent with the stock assessments and that would allow for continued collection of data needed for stock assessments and evaluation of conservation and management measures. Each alternative suite analyzed certain management actions under seven different topics including quotas/species complexes, retention limits, time/area closures, reporting, seasons, regions, and recreational measures. The proposed alternative discussed below is the preferred alternative in the DEIS.
Analyses of the Proposed Alternative Suite
Under the proposed alternative (alternative 4), NMFS would, among other things, remove sandbar sharks from the LCS complex; establish a commercial sandbar shark quota of 116.6 mt dw; establish a commercial non-sandbar LCS quota of 541.2 mt dw; add porbeagle sharks to the prohibited species list; establish a shark research fishery that would allow a limited number of commercial vessels to fish a limited number of trips for all LCS, including sandbar sharks; reduce the retention limit for all other commercial vessels to 22 non-sandbar LCS and 0 sandbar sharks; require fins, including the tail, to be landed attached to all sharks; maintain the mid-Atlantic shark closed area and implement several other closed areas from Florida through North Carolina, per the recommendation of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC); require dealer reports be received (rather than postmarked) by a certain date; eliminate the trimesters and regions and replace them with one fishing season starting January 1 and one region including the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean Sea; and limit recreational anglers to possessing only those shark species that are easily identified, including bonnethead, nurse, tiger, great hammerhead, smooth hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, lemon, sharpnose, shortfin mako, common thresher, oceanic whitetip, and blue sharks.
-
Quotas, Species Complexes, and Retention Limits
Under the proposed alternative, the current LCS complex would be split
[[Page 41394]]
into two groups: sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS. The sandbar shark quota would be 116.6 mt dw (257,056 lb dw) and the commercial non- sandbar LCS quota would be 541.2 mt dw (1,196,129.5 lb dw). The 116.6 mt dw quota for sandbar sharks would be allocated to the vessels operating in the research fishery. In addition, based on catch composition in the bottom longline observer program, NMFS anticipates that 50 mt dw (110,230 lb dw) of the non-sandbar LCS quota would be caught in the research fishery. The rest of the non-sandbar LCS quota could be taken by vessels operating outside of the research fishery. These quotas are based on recommendations from the most recent LCS stock assessment. Therefore, this level of fishing effort would stop overfishing of sandbar sharks and allow sandbar sharks to rebuild as well as keep other LCS, such as the blacktip shark, from being overfished and from experiencing overfishing.
Establishing a separate category for sandbar sharks from the LCS complex is mainly administrative in nature and should only affect how NMFS monitors the sandbar shark quota. The establishment of a separate sandbar shark category by itself will not impact fishermen, as they currently record shark interactions on a species basis in the logbooks. Similarly, establishing the other LCS into a non-sandbar LCS category is similar to how the LCS fishery has been managed in the past and should have few economic or social impacts. However, as described below, the quota reductions and retention limits could have negative economic and social impacts.
Under the proposed alternative, vessels with either a directed or incidental shark limited access permit (LAP) could apply to participate in the shark research fishery. Each year NMFS would publish shark research objectives for the year and request proposals that meet these objectives. Shark fishermen who were interested in participating would apply for a permit to fish in the shark research fishery. Based on the research objectives for a given year, NMFS scientists and managers would select a few vessels (i.e., 5-10 vessels) each year to conduct the prescribed research. Selected vessels would work with NMFS to conduct shark research. Vessels selected for the research fishery would be subject to 100 percent observer coverage; however, fishermen in the shark research fishery would be afforded higher trip limits and could sell their catch, including sandbar sharks, compared to vessels outside the research fishery. This research fishery would allow the collection of fishery-dependent data for future stock assessments as well as allow NMFS and fishermen to conduct cooperative research to meet the shark research objectives for NMFS.
Only vessels operating within the research fishery would be allowed to harvest the sandbar shark quota until 80 percent of the sandbar shark or non-sandbar LCS quota was met. At that time, the shark fishery would shut down to account for state landings and ensure the 116.6 mt dw commercial sandbar quota was not overharvested.
Retention limits of sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS for vessels operating in the shark research fishery would depend on the research objectives of a given year. For example, assuming a catch composition of 70 percent sandbar sharks (and hence, 30 percent non-sandbar LCS) the 116.6 mt dw sandbar quota could be fulfilled in 92 trips with a 4,000 lb dw sandbar and non-sandbar LCS trip limit (70 percent x 4,000 lb dw trip limit = 2,800 lb dw sandbar sharks per trip; 92 trips x 2,800 lb dw of sandbar sharks = 257,600 lb dw or 116.6 mt dw). On average, under the current regulations, 872 directed permit holder trips were made under the 4,000 lb dw LCS trip limit from 2003 to 2005. NMFS expects the number of trips under the research shark permit to be lower than the current average number of trips per year, and therefore, anticipates that the proposed alternative would have positive ecological impacts for sandbar sharks. Each shark research permit would specify the amount of sandbar and non-sandbar LCS allowed per trip.
To participate in the research fishery, vessel owners holding a directed or incidental shark LAP would need to submit an application annually to NMFS for a shark research permit. The shark research permit would be considered a specifically authorized activity, and fishermen would apply in a manner similar to how they apply for an exempted fishing permit (EFP). NMFS would review all applications and would issue permits to those vessel owners that meet certain criteria as specified in the regulations and also meet the published shark research objectives for that year. Specifically, NMFS would need to ensure that eligible vessels are spread throughout the range of the shark fishery and that vessels could fish for sharks throughout the year. The number of vessels issued a shark research permit each year may vary depending on available quota and the amount expected to be collected by each individual vessel. Depending on the data needed from the fishery that year for stock assessment and other scientific purposes (e.g., comparison of catch rates between circle and J hooks), NMFS may include other criteria, as needed, including the need to attend specific training sessions such as the shark identification workshops that are currently required for shark dealers. Vessel owners issued a shark research permit would not need to submit the interim or annual reports required with other specifically authorized activities. Rather, vessel owners would need to continue submitting logbook reports as required when fishing under the shark LAP. Once issued, the shark research permit would be valid only when a NMFS-approved observer is on board and all other terms and conditions of the permit are being followed.
Vessels in the shark research fishery would be required to sell sharks, including sandbar sharks, to only permitted dealers, as is currently required. NMFS is considering requiring dealers to obtain specific information from each vessel owner or operator for each sandbar shark landed. This information may be required to accompany each sandbar shark to final disposition. NMFS is also considering other methods of ensuring that sandbar sharks are landed only by vessels issued a shark research permit with an observer on board but is not proposing a specific method at this time.
Vessels that do not have a shark research permit, or vessels that have been issued a shark research permit but do not have a NMFS- approved observer on board, could still land 22 non-sandbar LCS per trip and SCS and pelagic sharks subject to the current retention limits determined by their permit type. On average, directed permit holders landed 40 non-sandbar LCS per trip as reported in the Coastal Fisheries and HMS Logbooks from 2003 to 2005. Therefore, this would be a 48 percent reduction in non-sandbar LCS per trip for directed permit holders. Incidental permit holders landed 3.7 non-sandbar LCS per trip on average as reported in the Coastal Fisheries and HMS Logbooks from 2003 to 2005. Therefore, NMFS does not anticipate any adverse effects on incidental permit holders. Total landings of non-sandbar LCS by boats outside the research fishery would be limited to approximately 491 mt dw (assuming, as discussed previously, that 50 mt dw of the non- sandbar LCS quota would be caught while fishermen filled the 116.6 mt dw of sandbar shark quota in the research fishery), in order to ensure that the total 541.2 mt dw of the LCS quota would not be exceeded.
It is anticipated that sandbar shark discards will occur on gear such as pelagic longline (PLL) gear, which could
[[Page 41395]]
interact with sandbar sharks from vessels operating outside the research fishery (approximately 4.3 mt dw). Shark discards in the research fishery are anticipated to occur as they have during directed shark trips in the past. Outside of the research fishery, vessels would not be able to land sandbar sharks and would have to discard them. Because of these discards in and out of the research fishery, it is anticipated that discards of sandbar sharks may increase by 36 percent compared to current discards. However, commercial landings and discards would still be reduced by 82 percent compared to alternative 1 (no action: 728 mt dw in landings + 9.6 mt dw in discards = 737.6 mt dw total; alternative 4: 116.6 mt dw in landings + 13.1 mt dw in discards = 129.7 mt dw). The total commercial landings and discards plus an estimated 27 mt dw of recreational landings (156.7 mt dw total) is still below the 158.3 mt dw sandbar shark TAC recommended in the 2005/ 2006 LCS stock assessment. Therefore, quotas and retention limits under the proposed alternative would meet the rebuilding plan for sandbar sharks and would have positive ecological impacts on this stock.
Additionally, since the boats in the research fishery would be directing on sharks, it is assumed that dusky shark discards would occur during those research trips as they have in the past when there were directed BLL trips. However, since the overall number of boats operating in the research fishery would be limited, it is anticipated that dusky shark discards could decrease by 72 percent under the proposed alternative, resulting in positive ecological impacts for this stock.
Based on the small number of boats that could fish for sandbar sharks in the research fishery, most current directed and incidental permit holders would not be allowed to land sandbar sharks, resulting in negative socio-economic impacts for these permit holders. In addition, since directed permit holders presumably make a greater percentage of their gross revenues from sandbar shark landings, directed permit holders outside the research fishery would be expected to have larger negative socioeconomic impacts compared to incidental permit holders outside of the research fishery. However, to mitigate some of these impacts, directed and incidental permit holders outside of the research fishery would still be allowed to land non-sandbar LCS, SCS, and pelagic sharks.
In 2006 ex-vessel prices, it is estimated that vessels operating in the research fishery could make $490,411 in gross revenues of sandbar shark and non-sandbar LCS landings. Vessels operating outside of the research fishery could make approximately $1,502,994 in gross revenues. In total, vessels operating in and outside of the research fishery are expected to have gross revenues of $1,993,435 in sandbar shark and non- sandbar LCS landings. This is a 48 percent reduction in gross revenues from sandbar sharks and non-sandbar LCS under the no action alternative (gross revenues based on current directed and incidental permit holders' landings were $3,824,589).
Also under the proposed alternative, porbeagle sharks would be prohibited in the commercial and recreational sectors. This is expected to have neutral ecological impacts for this stock since the United States has had minimal landings of this species. In addition, since most porbeagle sharks are caught on pelagic longline gear, reductions in fishing effort associated with BLL gear from reductions in the sandbar shark quota are not anticipated to have much of an ecological benefit for this species. Prohibiting the retention of porbeagle sharks is anticipated to increase dead discards by 0.4 porbeagle sharks per year. Based on the average porbeagle shark landings from 2002 to 2004 (1.5 mt dw or 3,402 lb dw) and 2006 ex-vessel prices, placing porbeagle sharks on the prohibited species list is equivalent to a $6,081 gross revenues loss in porbeagle shark landings.
This alternative would also change how NMFS adjusts quotas. Under the current regulations, NMFS adjusts the shark quota based on under- and overharvests from the previous year. Under this alternative, adjustments would be based, in part, on the status of the stock. If the status of the stock is considered to be unknown or overfished and/or if overfishing is occurring, NMFS would not adjust for underharvests. NMFS would continue to adjust for overharvests. These measures should ensure that overfished species continue to rebuild under the rebuilding plan and species that are unknown or that have overfishing occurring do not become overfished. However, if the status of the stock is known or not overfished and if overfishing is not occurring, then NMFS would adjust for underharvests until the quota is 50 percent above the base quota (e.g., if the base quota is 100 mt, NMFS would adjust it to a maximum of 150 mt). As with the no action alternative, NMFS would continue to adjust for overharvests. These measures should ensure that species that are not overfished do not become overfished.
This alternative would also require all shark fins, including the tail, to be landed attached to the shark carcass. Fishermen could cut the fin partially off the carcass as long as skin remains attaching the fin to the carcass. This type of cut should allow the fins to be folded against the carcass for storage purposes and should ensure that the quality of the meat does not degrade. Requiring the fins to remain on the carcass is a change from the current fishery, which allows fishermen to cut the fins off the carcass prior to landing as long as both the fins and carcass are landed together. Keeping the fins attached to the carcass should have some positive ecological impacts in that species identification should be improved for reporting and enforcement purposes, and enforcement of the ban on shark finning would be facilitated. The overall economic impacts should also be minor as fishermen should be able to receive the same ex-vessel price for the meat and fins but, in the short term, the market would likely undergo some changes as fishermen and dealers work out who would be responsible for cutting the fins off the shark once the shark is offloaded.
This alternative would also modify the current quota available for EFPs and display permits. This alternative would not limit the sharks available under scientific research permits or letters of acknowledgment. The current shark quota for EFPs and display permits is 60 mt ww. This alternative would not allow for dusky sharks to be taken under EFPs or display permits. This alternative would also split sandbar sharks out of the 60 mt ww quota and provide for quotas of 1.4 mt ww (1 mt dw) for sandbar shark EFPs, 1.4 mt ww for sandbar shark display permits, and 57.2 mt ww (41.2 mt dw) for all other shark species, other than dusky sharks. Except for dusky sharks, these quota changes are mainly administrative in nature because the quota has not been taken in the past. However, all of these changes should help NMFS provide more control over shark species that are on long-term rebuilding plans.
-
Time/Area Closures
Also, under the proposed alternative, NMFS would maintain the mid- Atlantic shark closed area to BLL gear and the current BLL closures in the Caribbean that were implemented in March 2007 (72 FR 5633, February 7, 2007). Therefore, the ecological impacts associated with these closures would be the same as described under the no action alternative.
In addition, NMFS would implement the marine protected areas (MPAs) recommended by the SAFMC that range from North Carolina to the Florida Keys. These MPAs were proposed in
[[Page 41396]]
Amendment 14 to the Snapper Grouper FMP. A total of 19 MPAs were initially considered in Amendment 14, and 8 of the MPAs were preferred in the SAFMC's final recommendations in June 2007. The eight MPAs include one off southern North Carolina, three off South Carolina, one off Georgia, and three off Florida.
The primary purpose of Amendment 14 is to protect the population and habitat of slow growing, long-lived deepwater snapper grouper species (speckled hind, snowy grouper, Warsaw grouper, yellowedge grouper, misty grouper, golden tilefish, and blueline tilefish) from directed fishing pressure. The only HMS authorized gear that has the potential to interact with these species is bottom longline gear. HMS permitted vessels that fish with bottom longline gear normally target large coastal sharks, but small coastal, pelagic and dogfish species are also caught. Bycatch may include groupers, tilefishes, wahoo, skates, rays, and other species.
NMFS agreed to analyze the ecological and socio-economic impacts of the MPAs on HMS fisheries and to consider rulemaking to prohibit shark bottom longline gear in the preferred MPAs.
NMFS used shark bottom longline observer program data from 1994- 2006 to evaluate the impact of the shark bottom longline fishery on the snapper-grouper complex within the all of the MPAs initially considered by the SAFMC. Using a Geographic Information System (GIS), NMFS plotted the locations of all observed sets on the MPAs in the South Atlantic region to provide an overview of the number and locations of sets that intersected the MPAs. Since most of the MPAs are relatively small (
